Thursday, November 13, 2014

Re: On the necessity of non-neural correlates

---In, wrote :
Ralph Frost <ralph@...> on Nov 11, 2014 wrote:
>Another of the alternatives is to notice that with, say, one 
>instance of the non-neural correlates of ~consciousness, 
>that is, nested structural coding within hydrogen-bonding 
>and protein-folding, all that's required for 
>explanation/understanding is merely association, or, 
>technically, nested associations, aka, ~expression.
[S.P.] Ralph, what does the symbol "~" means in your posts? Second, can you suggest at least one fact from actual practice and demonstrate how your approach can be used to account for that fact?
[rf]  I appreciate your questions, but are you  perhaps also a bit resistant or hesitant to even provisionally acknowledge and face the ubiquitous ordered water/protein-folding structural coding as a fairly decent non-neural correlate of ~consciousness?

I generally use a tilde (at the beginning of a word)  to signify similarity, or that the word is "approximately equal to" or that the impression sought/intended is wider or expanded or at least different from the conventional impression conveyed by the word.  I suspect it is a right hemisphere communication on my part.  

In the case of "~consciousness", particularly in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness", at a simple level I am referencing something like "consciousness PLUS unconsciousness", or in my unstandard lingo: "the un-sub-conscious".  At a more complex level, since I see words as dissipative structures, in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness",  the entire notion of consciousness is questionable (to me) and the term may be in the same category as  "phlogiston".  That is, what we are really dealing with once we settle in with the ubiquitous nested structural coding  are non-neural correlates of LIFE.   Trust me,  I am confident these mostly unstated right hemispheric qualifiers are or would be most irritating to left hemisphere-oriented readers.

My other intention on tilde use may be  to overload its meanings and add  it as an abbreviation for "nested
structured~duality and nested fields within nested fields".  That would enable things like "reality is ~" which would be a big savings in text bandwidth.

As I said in my prior  reply to your initial private inquiry on this, I see some vague similarity or analogy between my tilde operator: "~consciousness",  and your "IIS{consciousness}" symbolism.  They both qualify.    I get the impression that IIS{} is more left hemispheric and points toward/assumes that the accurate details can be always be amassed leading to some idealized perfect (left-hemisphere-oriented) knowledge.   I realized last night that, say, back when folks were doing IIS{phlogiston}, ultimately, those advocates were completely blind-sided when Scheele, Priestly and others discovered oxygen and developed a coherent approximation of combustion, relegating phlogiston to its present category.  I say that "words are dissipative", because even when we do further IIS{oxygen}, that network of associations  has already merged or transposed into   the associated nested collections of proton and neutrons...  The overall networked graph develops, but for specifics:  it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust, ~ to ~ to ~. 

Here's a thought for left-hemisphere-oriented thinkers to consider.  Assume that Iain McGilchrist is generally correct in the story that holistic impressions are energetically formed first and ~mainly in the right hemisphere and then that representation is passed over to the left hemisphere.  Because, in my trial theory, we DO have the imagery readily available, visualize that the right-side initially structurally code the holistic image ~mainly in its fraction of the 10^20 per second flux of ordered water.

Then, over in left hemisphere, notice that it is receiving a stream of somewhat prre-formatted signals, let's call it, that are, at best, immediate memory artifacts.   Left hemisphere does its various processes and, in the process, let's just say that it gets signals back from previously forged protein-folded structures, that is, from longer-term memory.  Let's say, "images" and "words".  Now, my central point for now is to emphasize that all the left hemisphere queries get returns back from what would appear to it to be pre-existing, pre-formed, relatively hard coded surfaces or artifacts. And, in that manner, it would likely be the left hemisphere which would be convinced by its experience, essentially ALL of its experience, that, say, "mind is real", or that "the rational mind knows everything".     These impressions may also just be a necessary cost of having a persistent, so-called factual, rational memory.  It's very, very useful most of the time, but a little cumbersome and problematic when it's time to change paradigms. 

Think about it.  That may be or be part of McGilchrist's later point. I'm still less that 40% through "The master and his Emissary".

Regarding your second question {...can you suggest at least one fact from actual practice and demonstrate how your approach can be used to account for that fact?}, pleased re-read the first part of this post, above, then when you get here, read to the end.
[S.P.] See what facts I bear in mind. Let us take, for example, the behavior of mother-duck (or, mother-crocodile, or mother-snake, or mother-can, or human mother, etc.). She nurses and takes care of own progeny and is very aggressive towards other organisms even from her kin. I account for such a behavior as follows. First, I consider mother-duck as a subject of cognition. Then, this subject of cognition enframes some entity as a Whole which I formalize as the IIS{family} -- the element of AS-model. This enframing starts from the moment the given female organism becomes a mother. 
Then, the subject of cognition performs the AS-DIS transition, and the IIS{family} dissociates into other wholes: the IIS{first child}, the IIS{second child}, and so on. So, in the CFR (short for the cognitive frame of reference) linked with the given subject of cognition (here, the duck-mother) these integrated information systems are the elements of the same DIS-model, and they form a chain of IISs. The elements of the same DIS-model have certain properties (in the most simple terms, they are in harmony with each other). 
With time, when the children have grown up, the given subject of cognition (here, the duck-mother) performs the AS-DEC transition, which means that the Whole (here, the family) decomposes into parts, and her children are already considered as the elements of DEC-model. The elements of DEC-model (which appear after decomposition of the initial Whole) have their own specific properties (in the most simple terms, they are in antagonism to each other). In practice it means that every member of that family starts to live its own life, and has got its own interests. The mother-cat beats her grown-up kitten who wants to suck her. This means: "Leave me alone! I have no intent to take care of you any longer! You are already grown up! Go to earn your own livings and feed yourself!".
To the point, there is one-to-one correspondence between the hatch of ducklings that follows its duck-mother, and the graphically represented chain of integrated information systems used to model that hatch of ducklings. Here, from ducklings' point of view, their duck-mother is the IIS{duck-mother} -- the element of AS-model. For there to be a DIS-model, there must be a certain element of the AS-model -- during dissociation into other wholes the initial Whole does not disappear. On the other hand, in every concrete case, there can be only one element of AS-model. THAT IS WHY when we replace the real duck-mother with a toy-duck, or even a ball, the ducklings will follow it as well.
But why the female organism, while being a mother, is so aggressive towards the other organisms? It's simple: she DOES NOT consider them as the elements of the same DIS-model that appears after the IIS{her family} dissociates. She considers own family and other organisms (including other families from her kin) as the elements of DEC-model. As I have mentioned above, the elements of DEC-model are in antagonism to each other. 
So, Ralph, my explanatory framework can account for the facts from real life of the consciousness-possessing organisms. Now, please, demonstrate how your "nested fields within nested fields", or your "nested structured~duality" can be used to explain the behavior of the hutch of ducklings, or anything else. I'm all ears.
Serge Patlavskiy

[rf]    Regarding the Mama Duck behavior,  before getting to its so-called cognitive transactions, I notice the structurally coded distinctions that make a duck a duck, and not a rooster or hen. Then I consider what would possess a duck to sit on its eggs, or many of it's other behaviors. I think of my own autonomous behaviors and unconscious behaviors.  I see more protein formations and protein folding -- more nested structural coding -- in hormones and pheromones, etc.,  and I even remember that the Mama Duck, when she was an egg, may have a memory stacked away of being sat one by her Mama. And she certainly could have witnessed the behavior in the flock and thus had SOME pre-formed indication of the so-called instinctive behavior.   So, I see  aA LOT of nested structural coding.   

I observe that you do have categories and traits and a schema and you make associations.  I also observe that your model emphasizes various types of bonding and separating.  Throughout life we encounter nested equilibria, bonding and separating, so, such a categorization system, an instance of nested structured~duality,  should have some strong associations.     

I get lost, a bit, though, when I try to consider the account your offer as an explanatory framework.  It looks like an associative guide to me. But I am not you, nor am I other people.    The tenet in the trial theory I am running is reality is ~, that is, reality is nested structured~duality.  I realize that is borderline schizophrenic and borderline wave/particle type of paradoxical.  However, as you witness, it does result in various, highly compact expressions to convey a different sort of understanding of many of the topics under consideration.   

I am aware that you assume tenets which are what I call, further up the spectrum of nested structured~duality. You focus in on energy, information, entropy and materials aspects, if I remember somewhat correctly.  

In those respects, we're each beginning with different initial conditions and as you are aware, outcomes are dictated mainly by their initial conditions. 

I'm getting the impression that my model tolerates and/or contains the trial theories that you  and others advocate whereas the converse is not true.  

I'm looking at that, currently, as an advantage to the trial theory that I am advocating. 

ymmv (Your mileage may vary) on that.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment