Saturday, July 25, 2015
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.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
[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.
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.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
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.)
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.)
Monday, June 29, 2015
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?
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?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
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 :
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,
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)