Monday, August 10, 2015

Re: Is there only one consciousness?


The way I'd encourage you and other readers to consider it is: reality is nested structured~duality.  Then consider the previously stated instances of nested structured~duality. Please pardon me for not writing just that in the earlier post.

In this manner, readers can face the new generalization squarely. It's true, one may then  immediately erupt into the insecurity and awkwardness that is hidden in the claim: "But WHAT is nested structured~duality??", but that is the challenge of the initial step in all paradigm transitions -- participants DO face the prospect of learning a new generalization.   I would think people on the path to uncovering an improved general theory would likely welcome such a life-long learning prospect. 

With "reality is nested structured~duality" as statement #1, then we encounter the statements or expressions that we or others have experienced and learned and shared which are based in, or form parts of other, prior paradigms.    That is, then  we encounter or bring up things like "both physical and mental aspects", and/or "subjective and objective aspects", and/or "phenomenal and noumenal" which have their origins in prior paradigms -- prior instances of nested structured~duality.  

You and other readers may benefit by thinking of the new generalization as a previously hidden or unknown or unspoken category. Given the newly expressed term, the previously unknown cateory comes into being.   Then the improved generalization processes can proceed.  

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on , 2015 wrote:
>... reality, both the physical and mental realms, are nested structured~duality.
[S.P.] So, you postulate that:
1) (what you call) "reality" -- it is "both the physical and mental realms";
2) (what you call) "reality" -- it is (what you call) "nested structured~duality".
I think that your first postulate has to be augmented by the following two:
(a) (what you call) "physical realm" exists (please, indicate whether it exists objectively or subjectively as some model);
(b) (what you call) "mental realm" exists (please, indicate whether it exists objectively or subjectively as some model).

[rf] Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Pardon me for trying to take a  shortcut in my first, compound statement.  (See opening, above.)

1. Reality is nested structured~duality.
2. Prior expressions and beliefs, like "physical and mental aspects", "subjective and objective aspects", and/or "phenomenal and noumenal aspects" are all instance of nested structured~duality.

By the way, what about a model of the objective (real) world which we create due to our consciousness? Do you consider the problem of modeling, the problem of general method, the problem of the system of proofs, and so on?
Serge Patlavskiy

[rf] I may not share the same belief that you might be expressing regarding: "a model of the objective (real) world which we create due to our consciousness?".  I'm not clear on what you mean. 

As I have written before, I observe and understand that people here on Earth are moving and migrating from one trial theory to another trial theory. I probably got that impression from reading Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  It seems to fit, personally, scientifically, and culturally. We work through a process of making successive approximations -- adopting and making refinements in sequences of our trial theories and paradigms.

So, I would paraphase things as, "Yes, ~Descartes [or someone prior] expressed (articulated, 'created')  the 'cube/subjective-objective' instance of nested structured~duality". It is a somewhat accurate approximation, but the cube structure, which is handy for our kind of introductory abstract math and accounting,  isn't that good an approximation of tetrahedron which predominates our and nature's functional structural codings. Is it? Also,  just think of it: here is ~Descartes [..] ~inserting "subjective-objective" distinctions and these are definitely ~consciousness-, or mental-aspect-related terms. That is, the observational cross-connection is built in at a very low level in that prior paradigm structure. 

So, from this, technically, I might agree that ~Descartes used his consciousness to create (or contribute to creating) the Western (cube/subject-object) scientific paradigm or model.   It turned out to be a pretty good approximation, but, now,  not so accurate, and, after 380 years and two or three adjusting epicycles,  in need of a rather substantial low-level paradigmatic upgrade -- that is, it's in line for another successive approximation.

From there, I would agree that I have definitely "used my consciousness" to  create the term and the model of reality being nested structured~duality.   But, because of my experiences, interests, faith, understanding and predilections,  I'd likely go further and use a more non-secular influential term than "our consciousness".

What I have difficulty with is seeing a need or value  in inserting the "objective" qualifier or distinction.  Having discerned the enfolding category of nested structured~duality,  I have already come to understand that what people term as objective or objectivity, is also or actually   strongly repeatable subjectivity.  That which we experience and observe as "objective", is not random or variable but exhibits a consistent, predictible, pattern. The pattern (of feelings/measurements) repeats.   Objective facts repeat. 

As for: "Do you consider the problem of modeling, the problem of general method, the problem of the system of proofs, and so on?",   I guess I would have to answer "No, not really".  Might these be problems that you encounter with the frameworks and instance(s) of nested structured~duality that you have investigated, considered or employed?

As I have summarized before,  I and/or this expression "came up through" the province of analog math: "What does one get when  aligning four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron?" 

ONE of the ~answers is "structured~duality" which I either guessed to be, understood as, or surmised or 'postulated' as an underlying general principle.   So, from a ~developmental perspective,  it would only be in hindsight that I might ever consider "...the problem of modeling, the problem of general method, the problem of the system of proofs, and so on".    And, if or when I might consider whatever those terms might mean,  I'd have to say those consideration never came up.  I experienced an analog model, then reconized a general principle, and then A more pertinent question might be, "How did I ever ever 'decide to' to think about and play around with and look into a magnetic tetrahedron? 

MY answer to that would go back to prior experiences and to three days after having some type of deeply moving inner experience at 10pm on September 27, 1977, when I "heard" a disembodied voice ask, "Ralph. How would you like to present a scientific discovery?".    I answered, "Yes". The rest, so they say, is history, and other sets of experiences.

Where or how does "the problem of modeling, the problem of general method, the problem of the system of proofs, and so on", fit in with this actual sort of completely irrational, miraculous set and sequences of experiences?  Or with the many, many, many questions, insights and helps provided by many other thoughtful individuals all along the untraveled way?

Serge, my impression is, "to consider the problem of modeling, the problem of general method, the problem of the system of proofs, and so on", one would have to take to heart and mind a deeply intuitive, koan-like, archaic,  and highly irrational sounding piece of advice which a friend once was kind enough to share with me back in 1977:  "you need more Jesus in your life".    That may be too salty for your present tastes but there may come a day where you might experiment with it.    As you may see, my answer fits with reality being nested structured~duality, but not logical at all within the current dominant model.

My point is,  all specific paradigmatic transitions are fairly  unique, mysterious, wildly intuitive happenstances. Yes, there may be ~rules and patterns, but we are talking about something which is essentially almost completely irrational. The task is to change from one rational  approximation to another. Essentially all of our associative and status quo-maintaining processes are fully resistant to making such a change.  And, here, every 150 to 400 years, or so,  here we re-discover the need to migrate from one trial theory to another, slightly more general, slightly more unified and compact, efficient and effective trial theory.  One or more individuals come forward with some provocative set of expressions. Sooner or later, the transition occurs.  Like radioactive decay, we can be pretty sure it will happen, but wildly uncertain about where or how, precisely, or when.

The specifics of how such paradigm transitions, even when occurring in plain view, are largely irrational and shrouded in mystery -- not limited by so-called rational thinking -- and not all that predictable, in its specific.  (Which, of course, would be some type of omniscience, which people don't yet have too much of.)

Best regards,
Ralph Frost


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment