A few thoughts on paradigm mechanics.

It is one thing to hypothesize about negotiating and successfully navigating through the various initial paradigm mechanical twists and turns involved in transitioning from the initial phase of the western scientific method into the more unified  scientific perspective.  It's quite another thing, though, to actually do it.  The task, or key aspects of it, seemingly are too big to bear, or, at least to bear and acknowledge.  Envisioning the potential and need for paradigm change is pretty simple and straightforward.  Discerning and communicating specifics of first steps on the new principle, tenets, computational symbolics and math are quite another. 

Based on the shift in signals I am experiencing recently, I am now assuming I have been somewhat successful in the initial definitions and communications.  My impression is there is a "disturbance in the force", so to speak. The tenor in rejections coming my way has shifted.  The Big Picture image of transitioning from Descartes' 375 year-old cube/subject-object model to the newly emerged nested fields within nested fields model is something now more than speculative or overly speculative. It's no longer potential.

In June of 2015, the western scientific paradigm transition is now fully underway.

In this immediate, what might be called the slightly awkward provisional, transitional phase, there are a few very serious issues for participants to periodically consider.   One large issue is the rather  large tangle of western science and western religions, particularly, with most people's conception of  the western cultures "being Christian".  

Is the West REALLY Christian, as in solidly, predominantly loving and giving Christ-followers?   Or, are we just money and resource grubbing western science   believers?  The issue we face is one of mistaken identity. A certain part of the jihad, or at least some critical thinking needs to be applied directly within the dominant western scientific paradigm.    That is the problematic,  slightly unbalanced, slightly misguided world-directing global influential belief system.  Generally, we don't give that obvious  issue much thought, however,  that is where the easy-picking low-hanging fruit is for us.

Because it is an initial phase one scientific paradigm, it is destined for change. That's obvious.   We are just not very experienced in implementing changes, on-the-fly, in our  365-24-7 global real-time scientific paradigm.

That is where Frost Scientific and paradigm mechanics have come in to play.

Would you like to participate in the paradigm transition?

True or false, or approximate enough? Considering Donald Hoffman's modeling

There is another advantage in noticing that reality is nested multiple states within nested multiple states within nested fields within nested fields -- or more simply, that  reality is nested structured~duality.

Basically, this additional new-found advantage is that such a more unified new perspective supports and is in good alignment  with Donald Hoffman's and others' findings that  "perception is non-veridical".   (See, for instance: "https://edge.org/response-detail/11942" or other of Donald Hoffman's publications since 2008.)

How or why might this be important?    Here's and example revealing more of the perspective. 

I read in a recent jcs-online post something to the effect of: "[blah-blah-blah, some argument(s)] ... therefore realism is false".   

At issue is not the quality or apparent perfection of the argument supporting the conclusion  that "realism is false",  but that given other times, or other orators having, let's say, newly effable (expressible)  or different counter-arguments,  readers have also been alternatively informed that, say, "realism is true", or "idealism is true (or false)", etc.  And on and on within all the various -isms for which the familiar logical true-false states are said or believed to be valid assessments. 

The issue, though, is that  with visual perception being non-veridical,  as Hoffman presents,  I observe that (secondary) thoughtful, wordful (verbal)  philosophical constructions can obviously be no less non-verdical.   Thus, potentially, open-minded readers may begin to get the impression that what we face  is not the assumed classical assessments of the naive, (2^n) true or false states and conditions.  What we actually face is our non-veridical, non-classical, more robust, higher dimensional nested approximations.

The philosophy of structural coding

Serge,

Thanks for your questions. 

I think I  do make progress on a few of the items you say you don't yet understand about realty being nested structured~duality and reality being unified in accord with the underlying general principle of  structured~duality.
However, before that I would like to back up to characteristics of rational compared with intuitive thinking/communication,  and begin by asking readers to glance at and register the contents at http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm particularly the 2nd and 3rd pairs in the bullet list.

Secondly, I understand "structured~duality" to be an intuitive term coined after a period of physical, sensory experimentation with magnetic tetrahedra (balancing,  *feeling* spins and the shapes of magnetic fields)   and concurrently a period of intense ineffability. No doubt the term: "struictured~duality"  is an imperfect, approximate term, particularly from a strongly left-brained or strictly rational perspective. 

Overall, when I consider the rational/intuitive characteristics of looks at differences/looks at similarities, I get the impression that looking at similarities would be the likely path for coming up with a more unified, different arrangement of paradoxical elements and features.  Yet, also, such a useful expression might not translate well, as RLG might say: into ordinary English. I would advise curious people to NOT try to take it  apart into separate parts but instead, to consder it more in the class as with wave-particle or the non-classical states that are considered within classical collections of matter.


But, let's see if we can make progress...

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

This week's find's in nested structured~duality - March 25,2015

...Quotes:

"The means of argument – the three Ls, language, logic and linearity – are all ultimately under left-hemisphere control, so that the cards are heavily stacked in favour of our conscious discourse enforcing the world view re-presented in the hemisphere which speaks, the left hemisphere, rather than the world that is present to the right hemisphere." -- Iain McGilchrist "The Master and His Emissary" (6070/17484 in Kindle version)

Also,  McGilchrist continues with:

"It is also most easily expressible, because of language's lying in the left hemisphere: it has a voice. But the laws of non-contradiction, and of the excluded middle, which have to rule in the left hemisphere because of the way it construes the nature of the world, do not hold sway in the right hemisphere, which construes the world as inherently giving rise to what the left hemisphere calls paradox and ambiguity.

This is much like the problem of the analytic versus holistic understanding of what a metaphor is: to one hemisphere a perhaps beautiful, but ultimately irrelevant, lie; to the other the only path to truth."

"What the left hemisphere calls paradox and ambiguity" my right hemisphere voices as reality being nested structured~duality and presents in the various artistic multiple states of  repulsively balanced magnetictetrahedra.

That is, paradox is a minority opinion. - http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php?newGD|slides|0

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

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