Friday, July 1, 2016

Re: Understanding reality in order to understand consciousness

Is my assertion (changing our understanding of reality -- changing scientific tenets/paradigms -- FIRST;  is a prerequisite to developing an effective model of consciousness)  comforting to you and in line with your thinking, or is that approach in conflict with your rationality and logic and thus cannot be allowed to co-exist with your approach and system?
Comforting or in conflict?

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on June 28, 2016 wrote:
>On another level, the meta-theory IS the underlying general principle 
>of nested structured~duality (NSD).  In my approach, reality is NSD. 
>If I were trying to populate some of your many categories I might say 
>the  the MT and GS and AT .. levels are all NSD.
[S.P.] Can you, please, consider any example from real life and demonstrate how your "underlying general principle of nested structured~duality (NSD)" works?
[rf] How it works?  Generally, I expect one off-the-cuff answer to that question is it "works"  via or through nested structural coding, which perhaps you and other readers can think of as resonance.  Consider the statement of the basic principle: all things have some structure and have and/or exhibit one or more sets of differences (dualities).   The 'nested' aspect of the different levels of organization (nested structure)  promotes variations in influences and interactions.   On the physical side of things, perhaps you might want to consider the spherical/in-out instance of NSD presented in, for instance:     On the ~mental side of the fence, perhaps you and other readers can reflect upon pattern recognition within different contexts and also within different paradigmatic models or belief systems.
In the real life experiences of changing paradigms, there come moments or periods just before the shift where, let's say, two models (or instances of nested structured~duality) fit the same sets of experiences or measures (or instances of nested structured~duality).   Having the various aspects of the puzzle and the descriptions and potential outcomes all in the same category (instances of NSD) simplifies the analytical tasks that participants face making it somewhat easier to first conceptualize or imagine  alternative paradigmatic instances [they are, after all, just different instances of NSD], and then for participants to assess which alternative is more general/more terse than others -- have greater load-carrying capacity.   Again, having both physical artifacts and phenomena as well as mental/descriptive artifacts within the same single category allows for some productive descriptive, conceptual, analytical efficiencies which are simply not available in less unified, more verbose  models.