What it *feels* like. Solving the hard problem.

Consider hydrogen-bonding.  Imagine consciousness as an internal analog language forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Dialing out a few notches on the wording of David Chalmers' distinction termed "the Hard Problem  of consciousness", one way of paraphrasing the problem is: "Getting at what conscious experience *feels* like is difficult."  Or, as it's paraphrased in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences."

and the Wikipedia summary goes on to say:

"Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means."

Paring the philosophical jargon and the "subjectivity of qualia" down, though, just down to the simple "What does it *feel* like...", first off what we can notice is the question is really an emotional one. That is, issues and questions about subjective impressions are basically questions about emotions.

Is it 6^n or 12^n in stacks of binary tetrahedra (and ordered water)?

Okay, in the standard 2^n binary or Boolean structural coding, like in our 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or higher numbered n-bit computers, we have a rectangular array of n-bits. Each bit can have one of two values like one and zero, or a few milli-volts or essential no milli-volts, or an arrow pointing up or pointing down. Let's say n = 6 so 2^6 = 64 different patterns in that 2^n system.

When we slide over to the naturally occurring tetrahedral-shaped water molecules, like the ones forming in our respiration sites, these units are (roughly assumed to be) tetrahedra with two positive and two negative vertices.

The 6^n storyline comes about in thinking that there are six edges of a tetrahedron, and thus the two plus

Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

In http://http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
"Facing Up to the Problem of consciousness." [Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19, 1995]

wherein David Chalmers wrote:

"I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience."


Operating, myself as I generally do from the dream, or should I say the near delusions of grandeur state,  I am obligated to point out that assuming experience as fundamental, as Chalmers and many others do, is a helpful, but flawed initial trial theory.

I expect you would agree with that statement and would then hasten to add your corrective assumption of "aware-ized energy" as the fundamental. And, in my storyline, of course I'd drill into experience and then through the aware-ized energy and shine the light directly on the underlying, so-called "psycho-physical" yet little-known principle of structured~duality.[]

And, of course, oddly enough,  structured~duality as fundamental is the thing that holds and carries the full and growing load.

Coming around to accept this near delusion of grandeur is a challenge for everyone, myself included. And, it's not that easy to "prove", other than, as we have all observed, it fits nicely and robustly when you try it on.  Yeah, the duality terminology may frighten or irk  many people who are irrationally skittish about there being the seen and the unseen worlds, and, of course, there is still the huge natural resistance to disruptively innovating any actual shift from the status quo to the new, more effective scientific paradigm, you know, particularly, out in the open,  right here in River City.   And this quibble over terms can still proceed.

But, the point is, the central notion, the core concept works. We drill down through the various layers and we get to:

.........Psycho........-...........Physical.............
.......................|................................
.........Subject.......|............Object..............
.......................|................................
.......................|................................
.......Experience......|........Mass-Energy-Space-Time..
.......................|................................
..............Aware-ize-Energy..........................
..............Tambert Synergy...........................
........................................................
...............Multiple-States..........................
........................................................
.............Structured~duality.........................
........................................................

We do get to settle  out with the underlying principle of structured~duality, basically, because of the additional need Chalmers created on the physical side. To solve the various levels of the tricky Chalmers Multi-dox, we don't just have the new "explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness". We also acquire a matching explanatory burden in a theory of the physical side of things. We're faced with seeking the elegant unseen common denominator of both the psycho AND the physical: of experience and the mass-energy-space-time.

Framing the challenge, thusly,  as solving just these two simultaneous symbolic equations, taking a wild guess,  that is, employing the Frost transform in paradigm mechanics, that is, "trusting consciousness", one somewhat rational root turns out to be structured~duality.

Surprisingly enough, plugging back in and testing this root yields a quick and effective short-cut through the dark woods.  Shifting initial conditions from cube/subject-object to tetrahedron/north-south, in just a couple of one-half spins, leads directly to repeatable units of physical intuition on multiple states,  with absolutely NO abstract math pre-requisite.  That is rare explanatory power.  We see from the prior multi-generational experience since the 1600's that the cube/subject-object instance apparently leads to multiple states, but that path is considerably longer, abstract,  and actually is discontinuous in places.

So, the entire matter works out.  The "hard Problem" of consciousness dissipates. In fact, "consciousness" itself dissipates into a phlogiston-like  state, replaced by the underlying acts and notions of structural coding.


Experience is sort of fundamental but not actually fundamental. That's the rub.  

The multiple-states, the structural coding, the structured duality is the underlying fundamental.


Think about it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

No. Seriously. Today is the best day of my life!


--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Otmar Pokorny wrote:
>
> >Otmar: What seems to be  beyond the comprehension of  experimenters in consciousness is that what you say you experience is simply a reflection of what you believe you are experiencing. What you believe you are experiencing is WHAT you are experiencing.
>
> Otmar: Someone responds by saying, "To believe what I am experiencing, I must have some experience in the first place for a belief to be formed. So, experience goes before the belief."
>
> And so they argue backwards in a straight line, right to the moment of conception. It makes logical sense to do so. But, the thinking here is a result of the belief that life plays out horizontally, not veridically. The thinking, and thus the belief, comes first, then the experience. This realization is critical to consciousness studies, and this realization is only possible by believing, then experiencing, different states of consciousness.
>
> When I dream, I am in a different state of consciousness. Dreams are notorious for being non-linear. Think while you are in a wild emotional state, that is, in a different state of consciousness, and you may be told you are not thinking straight. Your thinking is  not linear.
>
> Chalmers writes:
>
> "Consciousness is an extraordinary and multifaceted phenomena whose character can be approached from many different directions...We will not understand consciousness by studying its character on just one of these dimensions." ('The Character of Consciousness',p.xi)
>
> Unfortunately, all his 'directions' are the same direction, linear. He writs, " Studying the phenomenology or neurobiology of consciousness alone may tell us a great deal, as might studying the metaphysics or the epistemology. The perceptual and cognitive aspects of consciousness pose huge challenges in their own right. But ultimately we must approach consciousness from all these directions."(p.xi)
>
> Here is the picture of several approaches converging on one target. His experience of consciousness seems to be as one single phenomena, from one state of consciousness, the state of normal waking awareness. If anything, experience with different states of consciousness likely will bring him to the realization that consciousness is the moving target, with not just one character. 'Studying' consciousness implies using the singular state of mind, the one dimensional consciousness of philosophical and scientific rationality. He keeps applying the same algorithm while expecting to get a different result that finally explains consciousness. That is, its not that he doesn't have a clue as to what consciousness is, but that he only has one clue. Even George Smiley needed more than one clue.
>
> Chalmers fails to recognize that the only way he can learn what consciousness is, is by studying and exploring his own awareness, by changing he focus of his attention and using his own consciousness in as many ways as possible.
>
> Otmar (the uninvited guest)
>

Nested tetrahedron

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "RLG" wrote:
>
> Just a note on coordinate systems, probably unrelated to
> consciousness, but should be made clear for readers of this forum.
>
> Ralph wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, consider that we ARE taught XYZ-cubic coordination
> > and
> > visualization as a "first-language". That's our bias .    But then
> > we
> > encounter the new-found awareness that ALL of our transactions are
> > engaged, naturally, in this tetrahedrally coordinated dance.   And,
> > the tetrahedral dance does fit INSIDE the cubic framework, even, in
> > fact, naturally expressing multiple-states in the process.
>

>[RLG]: Rectilinear coordinate systems are just one popular and common system.
> Standard mathematics has an infinite number of such systems; spherical
> coordinates, polar coordinates, and so forth.  It should be really
> easy to have a linear transformation from the usual rectilinear
> coordinates to a coordinate system with axes in alignment with the
> tetrahedron shape.  That is all part of standard mathematics.
> However, such a change is no big deal and sheds no light on
> consciousness.
>
> R

[ref] Yes, equivalent frameworks are an important point. Given, for instance, the actual way consciousness works, how is it that they even arise or are recognized?   Or, put a slightly different  way, given the many inter-transformative equivalent representations, there ought to one or a few coordinations or configurations that do, in fact, instantiate more often within nature.   If previously unseen, discovery of such a more frequent natural configuration could certainly be enlightening on some features of natural consciousness.


Additionally, one of the perspectives I hold is that 100% of all abstract math symbols and expressions are artifacts of human consciousness. So, there is obviously SOME kind of important connections between the primary symbols and expressions -- the relationships -- within the fabric of human consciousness and with the secondary symbols and expressions people  cast to form terms and expressions of their abstract maths.  

I stress abstract math as an artifact of human consciousness, in part because I've observed that dogs, horses, cats, and cows that I have lived with and depended upon at various times, survive and function quite well and have superior senses and abilities, yet all without any dependence on or need for fiddling with any abstract maths.

Moreover, as described in my prior post,  having had the opportunity to study a small amount of organic and biochemistry, I have come to appreciate that a huge fraction of diverse molecular coordinations throughout the biosphere persist and function in the so-called sp3-bond hybridization.  That arrangement generally places four collections of "matter and charge", most often  at the four vertices of a tetrahedron.  (See: http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php for  some molecular schematics mostly taken from Morrison and Boyd's "Organic Chemistry".)

This means that all of the molecules of water in the world's oceans, rivers and streams, and clouds,  as well as the water that makes up more than 60-70 percent of each person's being, are all in this one tetrahedral configuration. The same generally holds for all organic carbon (and nitrogen-ammonia) -- as our fats, sugars and proteins -- making up living systems.  As well the silicates making up the mantle and crust of Earth and terrestrial type planets, exist in the same tetrahedral configuration.

So, a large fraction of the volume and mass of the Earth, plus our own physical selves exist within tetrahedral coordination and patterns. As well, in our own  respiration reaction, some number of carbonaceous tetrahedral units are dissipated  as 10^20 (tetrahedral) water molecules are being formed each second.  

Thus nature sings a loud and joyous sp3 (tetrahedral) refrain.

As you point out, standard abstract mathematics as developed so far, basically building up from the XYZ Cartesian model of the 1640's,  does indeed have several seemingly equivalent and/or inter-related  coordinate frameworks. And our dominant scientific paradigm, the one that doesn't yet have much coverage for consciousness  does maintain the perspectives you express. Indeed, getting to a different scientific paradigm which does improve integration would, of course, involve making one or more discoveries and changes or shifts  related to some of these coordinating features and issues.

Another point, more related to efficiency in direct visualization rather than apparently equality of computed numerical measures arises when thinking about the significance of order.  Physicists may say it as "initial conditions are important", or "outcomes often are determined by initial conditions".  I am proposing that learning tetrahedral coordination FIRST leads to a different and improved, naturally more organic way of thinking, rather than, as has been most students' experience since the 1600's, embedding the XYZ-cubic coordination system first.


Again, the short demonstration of this, rather than start with a point and a line and the number line,   is to flip through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron and then note the look and feel symmetry of this one general handheld multiple-state model with the similar five possible charge or electronegativity patterns of the sp3-hybridized molecular arrangements.   One pattern begets five  states differing in increments of one-half spin. These five states model the patterns making up the molecular states of essentially all life and  much of our world.

Then, to shed some light on the un-sub-conscious, one can use the n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron unit and showing that there are six (or twelve) ways to orient it within or relative to an enfolding field (equivalent to beginning with the tetrahedron, then ADDING the XYZ-cubic framework).   Then the visualization shifts from the ~six states of the n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, to the analogous ~six possible orientations of each water molecule forming during steps in our respiration reaction.   In under 20 lines of text,  that gets learners to an appreciation for and perhaps some physical intuition of the 6^n internal structural coding that is always running concurrent with all of our moods and experiences.  Since initial conditions influence outcomes, repeating vibrations in the environment obviously would form or select out repeating patterns in the chains of water molecules being formed during respiration. Thus, beginning with tetrahedron, learners would quickly experience and acquire an appreciation of at least one way living and breathing also results in having a somewhat functional internal associative  representation of our surroundings.  

Since the structurally coded packets of water molecules formed during respiration would subsequently influence protein-formation and folding, the same internal analog language can also be observed as having direct active connections with motility and, through protein-folding, ALL human expression and communication. So, the impression is of a deeply integrated associative/relational process.


Yes, certainly many would  probably say one counter-claim may be in favor of the total wad of abstract math that you referred to earlier and heading to quantum mechanics.   That is,  certainly the option is to start in with the Cartesian split, the point, line and number line and embed the XYZ-cubic framework FIRST, and then build outward  through the various layers and logics to also arrive at some appreciation and some distribution of physical intuition to students of reality as resting upon multiple-states.

As you said and I agree, going that route generates a lot of equivalent frameworks (which would also be characteristic of  a multiple-state system) but doesn't or hasn't yet seemed to lead to ANY clearly functional description or accommodation for "consciousness". (other than the one I am presently .-)

So, again, different initial states lead to different sets of outcomes and involve different levels of effort.    It will be interesting to discover how such  alternatives pan out.


Imagine facing the global classroom...


Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Ralph


Joy, to the world
Heaven and nature sing.

Analog Math

I get quizzical looks, sometimes, when I mention "analog math", as if perhaps I may have a few screws loose. I suppose the situation degrades further when I speak or point to a magnetic tetrahedron and/or the five ways to align four magnets along the center-to-vertex lines of a tetrahedron.  Of course this spawns the n4, n3s, n2s2, ns3, and s4 primary isomers and we're off and running with the "look and feel" of many biologically significant molecular arrangements and a HUGE fraction of the biosphere.  And, of course since one can feel the artifact and the pull and push of of the quantum gravitational fields, the thing gives the right  "analog" signals right out of the box.  But a fair question still is,  "Why tetrahedron?",  or "Why magnets?"

Origin of ~ : the underlying principle of approximate equivalency

Origin of the underlying general principle of approximate equivalency, symbolized as ~  : an alias for the underlying general principle of structured~duality...

Many readers seem to track on the structure or structuring part of the underlying principle of structured~duality, but often, people don't seem to feel comfortable embracing "duality" as a core foundational item (despite ALL the wave-particle, one-half spin attraction-repulsion evidence).

In an effort to seek and explore options (and alter bandwidth)  I've been considering abbreviating the term structured~duality  just to ~, which would give "the principle of ~".  Would that be pronounced "principle of tilde", or simply "principle of squiggle, that is, shift-the key left of 1 on your keyboard".

A search for the ascii value of tilde on Google,  beside showing 126, brought up the term "equivalency", and a search on "principle of equivalency"  did raise some hits and with the similar principle of equivalence.  A search on the full phrase yielded:

Your search - "principle of approximate equivalency" - did not match any documents.

So, it's an option, something  for people who see all the underlying inter-transforming multiple-states but who don't necessarily track on thinking of the underlying principle of structured~duality. Yes, it's true, collections of hydrated ions are approximately equivalent with all their transition states and paths and with their pre- and post equilibrium reaction products. It's all multiple-states jumping between multiple-states. Various dances of structural codings.

I believe if one peers into the term "approximate equivalency", it turns out to be a helpful, informative term and a decent alias for ~ and structured~duality.

Think about it.

Getting a *feel* for modern science.

In prior accounts of the trial theory of consciousness I advocate, the
storyline goes that when we inquire about the source of electrical flux and
potentials measured in neuroscience's synaptic and neural studies, we quickly
discover the energy comes from the aerobic respiration reaction. Considering
that reaction, we discover the on-going generation of 10^20 water molecules per
second being created throughout all the widely distributed sites in the body.
Sequences of these particularly shaped molecules have the propensity to
structurally code in an active 6^n analog/associative pattern.

In prior accounts, often I'd choose n=12 to get 6^n to come out to a high number
around 2.2 billion options or different associations that could each pack into a
stack of 12 molecules. These hydrogen bonding packets, once resonantly coded in
relation with on-going experience  can then (1) unfurl or
dissipate imparting influences in protein-folding so as to deliver expression
or motility, and/or (2) become incorporated in bound water layers in newly
forming protein matrices and thus be stored for use/retrieval/resonance in
future events or cycles, sort of like excess food gets stored as glycogen in
fats.

Hopefully, if one weren't too terribly autistic or psychotic in their
expressions, when replicated the expressions might prove beneficial to
(absolutely conserve energy expenditures by) and thereby curry positive
attention from both the individual and within the larger, enfolding social
group.

In a 6^12 system there are 2.2 billion associations, and in a 6^18 coding,
10^14 associations. One can speculate this single common analog math divides
between the different sensory channels or, repeats codes, so as to give odd
influential results, for instance, should auditory codings flow within visual
centers (synthenesia). Imagination, creativity, forethought, and one would
surmise, wisdom would all function and easily develop within such a active
internal language.

Yet, today, if we sift down into the lower numbers and shorter stacks and
sequences (also shown with length-based initial, example-only, perhaps wildly
speculative associated categories/functions),

6^12 = 2.2 billion - "complex, abstract thoughts or impressions"
...
6^6 = 46656 - "autonomous signals"
6^5 = 7776 - "touch"
6^4 = 1096 - "smell"
6^3 = 216 - "Turret's Syndrome" [or your guess goes here]
6^2 = 36 - "feelings"
6^1 = 6 - "deep sleep/anesthesia"
6^0 = 1 - "red alert/flatline/anoxia"

and we consider the so-call six states of each unit as the six directional
vectors:

a. bottom to top
b. top to bottom
c. left-back to right-front
d. right-front to left-back
e. right-back to left-front
f. left-front to right-back


within each tetrahedral-shaped water molecule.

With this backdrop, then, for instance, assuming there are just, let's imagine,
only 36 "feelings", and since emotions are said to prompt or be entangled at the
root of each and every thought, the first two positions in all chains, or any
two-unit sequence, can, speculatively, provide the ~emotional coding.
Therefore, among the initial units in a sequence beginning with states a,c,e,
say these code to some form of "flight" emotion, whereas units beginning with
b,d,f code out to some version of "fight" emotion. Yet, then there is room to
get added functional or dysfunctional alternatives or other versions, say, as
breaking out various codes for "freeze" emotions or reversals to get predators
and victims.


It's something to think about.