Friday, February 15, 2013

Putting structured~duality to work

[Reply/Post to jcs-online  Feb 15, 2013]

Dear Craig "Multisense" The Spyglass Guy,

Sí, Matey. Tierra a la vista.  Y está anidado.  (w/ thanks to

Or is that just the same old Spanish coastline nested within a fog bank seen through a cloudy lens?  .-)

Your instance of nested structured~duality does have many nice features and you raise or point at many relevant issues or questions.

By far, your best word, in my estimation, is "multi-sense" (or however you may spell it).  And, of course I have a large, fluid warm spot in my heart for my understanding or recognition of some of your "sensory-motive"  imagery.

I have some conflicts, from my perspective, with a couple of  what may be your treasured points, but then again the true or developing definition(s) of  "syzygy correlations" or any of the other words on your reserved words list (whatever these may mean) may cover all possible bases and a multitude of sins, or at least provide  avenues for graceful adaptive responses to all critical perspectives of your otherwise worthwhile conceptual contributions.

The conflicts or attributes I have in mind appear to me to be related to  what may be(1) a philosophical pan-psychist-like motivated  hang-up, or convolution regarding the specifics of your so-called "involution" and, again from my perspective, (2) your public-private  and time-space  duality procedural choices, and even the delightful sense-motive selections of dualities, which clearly are well below the Cartesian subject-object plane but these are all still too high up in the levels of organization of nested structured~dualities  so as to  obscure too darkly the emerging underlying principle.

Perhaps it's more accurate to suggest that your contribution is more like a well-painted impressionistic watercolor.  And, as you say, it's new-math-less and not a theory.

I'd also gauge your successful translation as a bit too left of center (too heavy on the scientific or objective side; lacking in fully supporting both objective and subject sides),  and seemingly only about one-third of the way from the Cartesian level down to the level of the underlying general principle  -- lodged firmly, as you say in the descriptive, illustrative levels.  But still, Craig, --nested multi-sense-- nice job!  Aye, Matey. Land ho.

Or, I guess with your sense-motive thingy,  the criticism (and compliment) is in you not having a very clear choice of structure, or actually hanging with a hidden, munged or unclear structure and going heavy on the munged duality, i.e., the sense-motive descriptive itself.   .

Regarding your involution, you wrote:

"Yes, exactly. No new math is necessary, we have only to interpret it 'right side up' (i.e. with matter and energy, time and space as a consequence of sensory-motor capacities interacting, not the other way around)."

My read on this, or my projection or hunch, is that this sort of resolution, I believe would mainly align nicely with and/or play well to the pan-psychist-leaning crowds. Do you get what I am meaning?

However,  there is a way in which the slightly erroneous concept or sense of time, and of space, ARE, in fact, a ~consequence  (product) of the (analog) ~sensory-motive apparatus, but, so far you also appear to want to retain very strong backward compatibility with time, space, established physics and  our traditional Cartesian-based  abstract math. You don't seem to be seeing that yet and so it appears to me like you have tied some type of slightly erroneous and unnecessary knot in your conceptual web at or near to that point.  This may be where your ship ran and has stuck aground, fetched up on the hidden reef of math-less-ness and therein unable to knit together a freeing, enfolding nested field to contain all of established physics and mathematical physics.  In that sense, all three of your ships  are caught in the same entangled shipwreck.

When you liberate yourself and free-fall or bungee jump the remaining two-thirds of the way down you finally encounter and immerse first within  the somewhat philosophical spectrum of repeatable subjectivities  (strong, stochastic and rare to very rare), and then merging within and fetching up within the underlying, enfolding principle of nested structured~duality.  Along the way, looking back up,  you may notice having adopted shifting from cube/subject-object-based abstract math, over to binary or magnetic tetrahedral tactile, analog mathematics and then adopting by inference a large treasure chest full of nested structural coding and nested fields within nested fields, some of which flows like living waters from clear wells, deep within.

Given and embracing the new tactile analog math, we continue on with our long journey. Without it, you stay on the reef and others  remain adrift and empty-handed, floating  on the old current back toward Spain and the Old World.

The new analog math illuminates the nested structural coding in the ordered water and in the regenerative hydrogen-bonding, ~carbon-based layers. The structured hydrogen bonding mediates  the protein-folding which IS our expression.

In your translation, you see and say, or intuit, or speak in tongues and prophesy, "sense-motive" and signal or point toward  the nesting, somewhat, in the multi-phasic "multi-sense". Or, if you don't, anyway that is how it sometimes appears to me.

Land ho, Matey, land ho. Nicely done.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost (under development)

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3


--- In, Multisense Realism wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Edwards, Jo wrote:
> > **
> >
> >
> > Dear Craig,
> > I am trying to understand your model but it is a bit difficult to pick a
> > way through the words buzzing about.
> >
> I'm sorry about that. I appreciate your being polite about it though. I
> don't deny that my writing tends is often sorely in need of a verbal
> pruning. I'm mainly trying to be thorough and precise, because so much is
> unfamiliar, but it's still unfamiliar no matter how many clues I try to
> spread around.
> >
> > You seem to be uncurious about other people in the debate. I posted the
> > address of my new site to the list only a few weeks back: shortened now to
> >
> >
> >
> > In the present context the online essays General Metaphysic (3pp) and
> > Reality, Meaning and Knowledge (300pp) are most relevant.
> >
> I must have missed your link before, but thanks, it looks very nice and I
> am happy to read what you've got. Yes, I have noticed that I am uncurious
> about ideas other than my own in this area, unless they relate directly to
> building my understanding. It's not my intention. It's more of a product of
> habitual monomania than willful ignorance.
> >
> > > Has anyone even suggested the sensory-motor primitive before?
> >
> > What about Schopenhauer's Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (roughly: the
> > world as motive/agency/will and image/idea/representation). Schopenhauer is
> > not the pithiest of writers but he could be credited with putting the
> > sense-motor primitive at the top of the bill, even if Leibniz put sense
> > (perception) top and called the motive entelechy.
> >
> What I'm doing though is specifically saying that sense is the continuum of
> sensation > perception > feeling > awareness > cognition > consciousness.
> It is specifically *not* representation, but presentation, and motive is
> the active mode of sense, not to make real but to project private sense
> into a more public form. Motive is strategic gesture, and the strategy is
> sense.
> More than that though, I think that I have successfully hit on the basic
> principles of how exactly sense and motive are to be integrated with
> physics. Motive disperses and diffracts sense as limited, repeating
> experience (time), nested narratives make sense of each other increasingly
> as objects or bodies divided by space, the sense of bodies across space is
> matter and the sense of the motives behind those bodies is energy.
> >
> > > Perceptual inertial frames.
> > > Significance.
> > > Sole Entropy Well.
> > > Solitropy.
> > > Multisense continuum.
> > > Private physics.
> > > Big Diffraction.
> > > Photon agnosticism.
> > > Quorum mechanics.
> > > Syzygy correlations.
> >
> > Those are words Craig, but what are the specific new ideas?
> >
> Each concept is explained on my site. I'm happy to discuss any of them, but
> I'm suspicious that you are more interested in your own claim that I have
> no new ideas than understanding what they actually are, so I would feel
> foolish spending hours for you to then say something like 'These are
> similar ideas which others have already written about." As far as I know,
> all of these can be legitimately considered 'new ideas'.
> > As far I can make out you are not suggesting a 'new physics' with new
> > mathematical structure, just a reinterpretation.
> >
> Yes, exactly. No new math is necessary, we have only to interpret it 'right
> side up' (i.e. with matter and energy, time and space as a consequence of
> sensory-motor capacities interacting, not the other way around).
> > Wherever I find you proposing this new interpretation it just seems to be
> > what I assume anyway - that there are two perspectives on the same universe
> > - pretty much Leibniz's perception/entelechy, Schopenhauer's
> > Vorstellung/Wille, or Whitehead's prehending mental and prehended physical
> > poles, crucially with NO third concept of 'material stuff'.
> >
> My interpretation picks up where Leibniz, Schopenhauer and Whitehead leave
> off. Not a dualism or neutral monism, but an involuted monism which is, if
> this makes sense, 'made of the capacity for its own involution'. Not
> neutral, but invested - committed, embodied (insisting on existence).
> > Nobody in physics thinks photons are 'literal structures in space'. Straw
> > men weaken an argument.
> >
> How would you describe what people in physics think photons are?
> > When you start getting into to detail things like of 'quorum mechanics'
> > the continued interpretation may be fine but the detail seems too fuzzy to
> > put to any test.
> >
> I think that I might be the guy with the dirty spyglass in the Crow's nest
> on the Santa Maria telling you where the land is. I don't pretend to have
> the talent or dedication to become the next Newton or Einstein. These
> concepts are far too green to be subjected to a 'test' other than a
> preliminary test of concept. My question is 'is there some obvious reason
> that I am missing why this could not be true?', not 'Why have we not begun
> re-writing all of our textbooks yet?'
> > My version of the same sort of thing predicts specific measurable events
> > that would be needed to allow the sort of awareness we seem to have. Can
> > you come up with some specific predictions?
> >
> My model predicts that no model of consciousness which derives its
> authority from specific predictions can be complete. To the contrary,
> consciousness is participatory, prediction abdicated participation by
> definition.
> >
> > >> Jo: Where, for instance do you show that Leibniz was wrong?
> > >>
> > > Craig: Here:
> >
> >
> > With respect, Craig, you seem to have picked up a rather chatty
> > translation and waded in without a background to the word usage. Substance
> > is a technical metaphysical term. You seem to assume that 'The Monad' is
> > singular, but it isn't, it is his name for each indivisible unit.
> >
> I am aware of both of those points. Even though substance is used in an
> immaterial sense, it doesn't matter because it still subtly objectifies.
> Sense cannot be objectified - it is never an "is" it is only a "seems like
> it is". I don't assume that Monad is singular, but it is not clear that
> monads can be separated from the Supreme Monad, which is of course,
> monadic.
> monad: "unity, arithmetical unit," 1610s, from Late Latin monas (genitive
> monadis), from Greek monas "unit," from monos "alone" (see
> mono-).
> In Leibnitz's philosophy, "an ultimate unit of being" (1748). Related:
> Monadic."
> Indivisible units are 'mini-me's' of The Monad.
> His usage of God will have been quite different from ours for both
> > intellectual and political reasons. A lot of the detail in Leibniz looks
> > wrong at first glance and he does not help the reader in many places but
> > very often it becomes clear that he is using a word in a way that can
> > actually make the argument watertight. The idea that the monad is an inert
> > vehicle of God's laws seems odd but it may make rather good sense in terms
> > of current field theory. I personally do think Leibniz got some things
> > wrong but your critique seems to be largely based on misreadings of the
> > jargon.
> >
> I am not by any means a scholar of Leibniz, although I do find a lot of
> common ground philosophically. My purpose in writing my critique was to
> provide a quick compass reading of where I differ from and and have sought
> to transcend what Leibniz began. I think that your critique of my critique
> is largely based on your underestimating my understanding - not of Leibniz,
> but of nature.
> >
> > > Craig: I don't assume that other people are ignorant fossils, they prove
> > it to me themselves.
> > > Step one: Your ideas make no sense.
> > > Step two: If they did make sense, they would be wrong.
> > > Step three: You aren't qualified to be right.
> > > Step four: You should model your ideas after other ideas with which I am
> > > more comfortable.
> > > Step five: Your ideas are no different from previous philosopher's ideas.
> > > Step six: repeat.
> >
> > Try running that sequence along your critique of Leibniz: are you throwing
> > stones from your glasshouse?
> >
> Not throwing stones at all, no.
> > Step one: Leibniz ideas make perfect sense.
> > Step two: They are mostly correct or on the right track.
> > Step three: He was imminently qualified to be right.
> > Step four: I have never presumed to give Leibniz advice.
> > Step five: His ideas were similar to some philosophers, but significantly
> different in others.
> > Contrast with my view of Craig:
> > Step one: Craig has latched on to the main idea - he may be worth talking
> > to
> > Step two: let's go through all his stuff, and then again, and if there are
> > good bits, again (as I did today)
> > Step three: there seem to be a lot of rather ill-defined concepts, like
> > diffraction, coming out, let's try and see what he really means in some
> > dialogue
> > Step four: despite the fact that Craig ignores everything I have said
> > about agreeing with him and assumes everyone else is a naive realist or
> > something let's keep trying to see what he really means because he might
> > actually have hit on a better way of conceiving things
> > Step five: still trying
> > Step six: still trying
> >
> Probably guilty on step four. I debate with a lot of people online
> constantly for years now, but it's probably no excuse for not trying to
> find out who it is that I am arguing with. My focus is one dimensional, I
> just have these ideas and it's my job to find out if anyone can understand
> why they are true or convince me that they aren't. The problem is that
> people generally try to convince me in the same way over and over again,
> (hence my list of steps) without any argument other than that they
> disagree. I'm not surprised that people disagree, I'm presuming to
> re-interpret the entire universe. That's automatic Crackpot 101.
> All I can say in my defense is that so far I have, in thousands of hours of
> this, come across anyone who has said anything which has given me pause.
> That may be a terrible sign of course. I may be utterly delusional and
> incapable of being wrong, but it seems to be the opposite. The longer that
> I talk to to people the more their objections sort of dissolve to a degree,
> but it takes months and months. In person it can happen in a matter of
> hours.
> >
> > Let's play the ball, not the man.
> > What surprising new prediction does your theory turn up?
> >
> I wouldn't call my hypothesis a theory, so the expectation of prediction is
> premature. It's power is not so much in giving us certainty about things,
> but in providing access to the entire other half of the cosmos. There are a
> lot of predictions in the area of psychiatry and sociology which I imagine
> could be made if someone focused on it. Applications for AI probably also.
> Again though, I'm not the theory guy, I'm the spyglass guy.
> Thanks for your patience and interest,
> Craig
> >
> > Jo

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment