Monday, October 16, 2017

Collapsing the wave function

Sadhu-sanga -

Dear  Kasyap, others,

Regarding stochasticity,  I think there are also alternatives to the models and perspectives that you and others advocate or discuss. 

For instance, I believe that the dominant scientific models we all reference have developed  from the root assumption of  objectivity separate from subjectivity -- in the slang terms that I learned: via the so-called Cartesian subject-object split.  If one wrestles that entanglement to the ground and simplies (hopefully not over-simplifying),  then everything in the objective category is also ~equal to or a member of  the strongly repeatable subjectivity category. That is, things that repeat strongly (consistently...) we have been educated  to call "objective".   ....Discern a pattern once or twice and it is just a "subjective feeling". Repeat the same "subjective feeling pattern" at several accredited, independent international science labs and we have a confirmed  instance of a strongly repeatable subjectivity pattern  ...that we previously have agreed upon and/or been educated  to call an "objective fact" -- and probably if it's a strongly repeating pattern, call it an  "objective classical physics fact".

Within the repeatable subjectivity perspective,  the two-category subjective-objective system collapses into a single category of grades of repeatable subjectivity, or to the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.  This spectrum includes non-repeating, rarely repeating, stochastically repeating, periodically repeating and strongly repeating, etc., 'feels', 'measures',  'impressions'... phases.   The strongly repeatable variety matches up with what we label as patterns in "classical physics", whereas the stochastically repeatable varieties may populate the "non-classical physics" realm, with some registering in the QM, xQED storylines and regions.   

For those interested, spiritual liberties may be then be seen to associate closer with rarely repeating (and/or more highly nested) situations, but still within the same single repeatable subjectivity spectrum category.  I suppose 'this all' may be more like a different, more nested topological viewpoint, and focusing more directly upon repeatability rather than "stochasticity" or "measures of probabilities" along with or versus, 'always' or 'assumedly never' happening events.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Collapsing the wave function

 (Would you hubris on that?)

 [rf2]   Also,  if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantum-like effects at various enfolded resonance points?  I mean, photovoltaics are macro-physical as are the stacked nested structured~duality  of Higgs-boson detectors.    So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality  (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...

Excerpt from post in!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA   Sep 27, 2017

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

sci.physics.research Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis

Mathematics of physical units and dimensional analysis

Interesting clarifications, Jan.

Regarding agreed upon dimensions, typed algebras, decisions and
adoptions of conventions, and standardization in units in terms of of T
(or 1/T), doesn't all of this also expose why or how, people got/get the
idea that '~consciousness' and/or observation is ~necessary/related in
sorting out quantum mechanical ~results? ...That is, the ~mental-related
qualities or aspects are already (sub-consciously) inserted in an
earlier, previously adopted set of conventions and thus are already
'nested' in the activity/experience.

In the storyline I advocate and express, 'reality is nested
structured~duality' which means pick a structure and pick a duality
(that is, had I had a better math education, aka, in your terms: 'typed
algebras'). But, with this more unified (NSD) perspective, what we also
have is nested fields within nested fields, rather than just an
idealized or assumed L^3 (length-cubed) container containing other
collections which somehow, inexplicably pop in and out of
particle-anti-particle existence.

One can sort of conceptualize 1/T vibrational features in a nested
fields within nested fields system, perhaps as sub-divided tetrahedra
within tetrahedra, whereas it seems a bit more difficult to grasp 1/T
everywhere starting with the initial condition of an un-nested L^3,
cubic model.


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Reality is nested structured~duality.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Nested Quanta - Acquiring Knowledge -- NSD-style

Nested quanta

Hey, thanks, RLG, for the link on quantum mysticism,  which led me to then skim over the many, many interpretations of quantum mechanics at

Quite a few, different complicated  instances of NSD there... .-)

In the quantum information theories or interpretations section,
the latter contained:

Quantum informational approaches[35] have attracted growing support.[36][5] They subdivide into two kinds[37]
  • Information ontologies, such as J. A. Wheeler's "it from bit". These approaches have been described as a revival of immaterialism[38]
  • Interpretations where quantum mechanics is said to describe an observer's knowledge of the world, rather than the world itself. This approach has some similarity with Bohr's thinking.[39] Collapse (also known as reduction) is often interpreted as an observer acquiring information from a measurement, rather than as an objective event. These approaches have been appraised as similar to instrumentalism. """
I am intrigued by, the """'s knowledge of the world, rather than the world itself....   and .... observer acquiring information from a measurement, rather than as an objective event."""

The latter prompts me to consider what it means to 'acquire information from a measurement'. 

I don't know how knowledge  is considered as 'acquired' within the dominant scientific paradigm, particularly via QM mathematical physicists if they lack a functional model of ~consciousness.

In the NSD storyline, however, I catch a glimpse of a "nested quantum fields or nested quanta" imagery that seems to have recently been extruding itself in through the cracks in my awareness. In the storyline I advocate, 'acquiring information [from a measurement, a sensory/memory measurement/difference, etc.,]' actually ~means building or accumulating a stack of, say, 6^n ordered water clusters, and/or synthesizing proteins, or other organic carbon/nitrogen, etc, artifacts.  Thus, NSD has a different, and I think, more accurate, informative   type of 'collapse'  or 'reduction'. Moreover,  people can acquire and consider the improved perspective, basically, by shifting from the abstract xyz-cubic... to the nested analog tetrahedral frame or reference.

That is, viewing things from the tetrahedral orientation (not just the xyz-cubic-temporal-Hilbert-etc., orientation),   ~knowledge is  nested stacks of sp^3 collections -- nested  quanta.

So, for those readers who can follow along,   in the NSD/tetrahedral imagery, what we have is various nested resonances among the various collections and arrangements of the artifacts formed and re-forming here within the local quantum gravitation, solar fusion flux system.

At a base level, we've got sp^3 hybridized arrangements nested  in photosynthesis and respiration transformations, structurally coding in ~living  molecules, channeling through, say, the carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc., regenerative cycles. 

When cast or modeled in the abstract, ill-fitting ~cubic/Hilbert recipe, we get the cloudy, probabilistic implications and complexities (and fair amounts of confusion) in the interpretations as shown in the link  above ( ). Plus, in that model folks do not yet have an actual  model,  much less a common denominator model for physical artifacts PLUS 'knowledge' and/or 'acquired knowledge'.

However, in the tetrahedral/NSD modeling instance, or framework, regardless of one's abstract mathematical background, we do. Due to  inherent nested symmetry within the  tetrahedral frame of reference  -- the inherent symmetry between our ontology and our description (~epistemology) --  a more unified perspective can  and does emerge. [Echoing discoveries of R. Buckminster Fuller in the 20th century.] Reality is nested structured~duality, and also, the base sp^3 hybridization of the local region IS tetrahedral.  Thus, acquiring knowledge involves nested state change -- complimentary, energy-related nested state change.

And, also thanks, of course, to RLG's contributions. 

So, thanks, RLG  ...and to all others!

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..

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

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

TAM Detour -- Re: FWD - overview aspect of consciousness


I believe you can forego your  walk-about  into triple aspect monism (TAM)  Land if you can first just consider more of the science facts available to you.

That is, where you write:

"""The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave).""",

before you look around for, or muse about  the secondary DEP's based on the conditioned notion of spatiotemporal reality, first focus in on the actual energy processes occurring in, say, astrocytes, neurons and other living cells.

That will quickly bring you face-to-face with the structio-energetic structural codings occurring in the (Kreb's) and aerobic respiration and the electron transport cycles which, IIRC, is typically located internal to each cell  in mitochondria.

Overall, body-wide, since people respire about 160 kg of oxygen per year, this amounts to the generation of about 10^20 water molecules per second plus energy flow, plus  amounts of carbon dioxide and also, varying amounts of some structural precursors. 

So, before you begin talking about supposedly helpful or informative metaphors involving just three of the ancient Greek gods, try, at least, to get to the actual end of relevant, known science.

Once you re-acquaint yourself with the on-going, known  primary energy flow, you should be able, perhaps after a 2 or 3 second lag, to also become aware that variations in this primary energy supply and integrated energy conservation process  also is giving some if not most dominant "dynamic energy patterns" (your DEP's). Thus, rather quickly, you and other readers can note that variations in the surroundings are directly coupled with variations in energy flow plus flow of hydrogen-bonding packets plus precursors, all of which IS variations in nested *feel*.

...All without skipping off into philosophical and metaphorical TAM Land, or, in fact,  applying unnecessary secondary labels such as 'informational' or 'phenomenal consciousness'.

If you squint, hard, at what these two secondary labels relate to, after 2 or 3 seconds, you and others may observe, both strongly relate to 'words' and 'groups of words', typically echoes, relating back to prior structio-energetic *feels*. So, that is,  these two so-called fundamental categories are just nested secondary echoes of the primary structio-energetic *feel* category.   Thus the TAM silk purse IS  invisibly and unnecessarily woven from and about the one wrinkled pig's ear.

FWIW, in the storyline I advocate,  these secondary echoes or structural codings that we call 'words', I believe are or can be fashioned in the 6^n structural coding of dualically structured water molecules forming in respiration (in concert with experience) -- hydrogen-bonding packets -- which reflect and influence protein-folding sequences, which of course, once coordinated, ARE our expression(s).   Thus, reading or writing, say, this paragraph involves some fast-paced but naturally occurring and acquired  structural coding of hydrogen-bonding packets and streams linking with closely related protein-folding -- ALL OF WHICH, historically relates and associates with, for instance,  sustaining or increasing energy flow and rewards.

I surmise or speculate that the reason you may feel the need to  raise the TAM veil, even though these scientific facts are right here in front of  you and everyone else, is your prior adoption and continuing reliance upon the spatiotemporal (particularly the temporal) belief system, plus, you may lack the vocabulary, say, of 'structural coding' or particularly 'nested structural coding' where the 'nested' part  is a fundamental tenet/quality.

Alternatively, invoking TAM may persist for you as a previously helpful, initial habit.

In any event, I encourage you to give our primary (Kreb's)/aerobic respiration and ETS structio-energetics 2-3 seconds of consideration and then let's us know what you think.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..

 With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

---In, wrote :

Dear RGL, you wrote:

"You again make a good case that the neural correlates of conscious experience are brain waves (hydro-ionic waves which are ultimately waves within the electromagnetic field) and you know that such waves are subject to the hard problem. How can any wave have or enable a feeling? From reading your PDF files you do use words like “may” when hypothesizing a link and that is definitely a credit to you. One question does come up: when you write that these waves `instantiate’ feelings, in what sense do you mean? That is really puzzling, I look forward to any clarifications that you may have."

Alfredo: Many thanks for the reading and for your attention. An answer to your question requires reference to the philosophical theory (Triple-Aspect Monism = TAM) I have developed to account for the model (now called "hydro-ionic", was called the "calcium wave model" in other publications). The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave). Feelings include the feedback of the wave on the other aspects, physical (e.g. psychosomatic effects) and informational (regulatory and modulatory effects). The assumption is that each kind of pattern of the hydro-ionic wave corresponds to a kind of feeling. What is a feeling in this framework? It is a temporal pattern of energy variations that corresponds to a possible combination of the DEP. When we feel, we make actual a possible combination of the "building blocks" of reality.

TAM is an ontological theory. Now I am working on the metaphysic of TAM, trying to figure the DEP and how they self-organize to generate the three-folded reality. One possible metaphor is to compare the DEP with the Gods of polytheism. Each God corresponds to one power of Nature. For instance, the Heraclitian flow or the becoming process of reality depends on the action of Chronos, the fundamental time (that induces the other times, as the relational time given by entropy increase and the subjective time of consciousness). This is of course highly speculative and attempts to explain why the hydro-ionic wave is the medium that instantiates feelings. The main argument (already present in my papers since 2010) is that this wave instantiates temporal variations of amplitude (the temporal waveform). In the 2017 paper "The Dynamical Signature..." I argue that such a temporal waveform follows a Fibonacci-like pattern, and here I add that this is the manifestation/instantiation of DEP. In other words, when we feel and the corresponding temporal wave is instantiated in our nervous system, we make a singular combination of DEP actual. This is a (possibly) new concept of phenomenality that is different from the use of the concept in Kant and in Phenomenology (there are some connections with Heidegger's concept about subjectivity being closely related with time). In Kantian terms, it is as if the apriori forms (as space and time) were DEP. I have worked with Chris Nunn comparing this approach with his proposed SoS, which relates phenomenality with temporal existence. In sum, it is an open field for philosophical and scientific interdisciplinary research.

Best Regards,


Sunday, June 25, 2017

Structio-energetic global workspace WAS: overview aspect of consciousness


Thanks for links to recent papers. You and your group do a good job of threading through the many layers to get down to your 'hydro-ionic' flows and also Gerald Pollack's structured water descriptions of exclusion zones serving as boundaries and channels, and protein configurations.  I don't follow all of your perspective(s) but I get the sense that you observe or can measure and do focus on  calcium ion clouds and gradients and properties of astrocytes that differ from those of other types of aerobic cells. And, -- is it that you seek or have found 2-3 second long processes there to persist as or while a so-called 'conscious episode' resonates?  Or is that the elusive goal?

I'm wondering if you can clarify more on that goal or supposition, or point me directly to a page of yours where that is  more clearly laid out? 

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Calf Roping


Thanks.  By 'roped in', are you saying you empathize a bit with the wild-eyed rodeo calves who find themselves in the dirt with  three of their limbs tied together?  I see it more like those situations in math where one section or set of equations and expressions is discovered to fit inside another and there is an overall expansion of unity and generality.  Yes, one may still feel blind-sided initially, but the advantage long-term is a clearer picture and improved expressions and understanding.

More below...

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on June 14, 2017 wrote:
> In the instance of NSD that you  construct and  advocate, you
>choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms:
>noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages.
[S.P.] On hearing that I "construct and advocate some instance of NSD" I have a feeling that I was roped in without being consulted. :-) What I construct and advocate is my epistemological framework plus a set of applied theories I construct within the limits of that framework. This is enough for me to explain or to name what I do.

[rf] Ok, but I have also been saying for a few decades: 'pick a structure and pick one or more dualities and then build out to limits of those choices'.  That is  the underlying general principle and thus, that is how and why the generalization works and holds.  It is just the way things are. You, me, everyone  "construct and advocate some instance of NSD".

[sp..] The involvement of such a phrase as "the instance of NSD" adds nothing to understanding of my results. The "NSD" is definitely not a girl I have been ever married with or had any other relation to. :-)

[rf] On the contrary, the categorization adds quite a bit to people's assessment, understanding and consideration of your results. You have created an instance of nested structured~duality and to the extent that the layers of NSD you construct are extreme or  complex or arbitrary or ill-defined, given the generalization, one can identify  such problematic and/or illogical expressions and conditions.

Also, there is the situation where sub-conscious  inconsistencies in expressions do become more apparent.  (See below.)

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Learning the *feel* of NSD Analog Math

---In, wrote :

 Ralph, you did not answer any of my questions; you never explain how your sugars, magnetic fields, fats, and proteins "has some *feel*". 

[rf] I believe I learn and appreciate *feel* via the tactile learning style.  If you are  predominantly, say,  a 'visual learner' you may not be able to 'understand' or appreciate my explanation.  Have you worked with wrenches and solved problems building physical things?  That is, your own gifts and proclivities may be in other areas -- as mine are.

To start out, either take, or remember playing with two rod magnets, one in each hand. Push /holdthem end to end.  Can you *feel* either the attraction or the repulsion?  Play around with resisting and imposing the attraction and repulsion. Notice that you can give magnets "one/half spin" -- 180 degree rotation, end for end, and still get the ~same *feels*.

Next, consider the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron -- two ways to have all repulsion at the center [variable mass density] (n4, s4); one way to have balanced attraction (n2s2); and two ways to have more repulsion than attraction [weak attraction] (n3s, ns3).

Notice (on the image of the magnetic tetrahedron at the link below, for instance) that I refrain from pasting visual cues or N-S labels on the ends of magnets.  I do this on purpose so as to not blur or inject the map with the territory -- in essence, to NOT overlay secondary visual/intellectual categorizations with the primary tactile observation/measurement.  If you can follow this, you may understand that what this discipline does is prompt for periodic or 'on-call' checking with a probe magnet to determine or measure  (*feel*) -- 'observe from perturbation differences'  -- which of the three sets of states  one has in front of them as "an object of study'.  Then, after that assessment, IF it really matters, a participant could align the probe magnet end in the local field and thereby think they were sort of conscious of specifically WHICH of the five states one really had 'observed', assuming ALL fields are not oscillating wildly back-and-forth. 

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Learning the underlying general principle.

The NSD principle that I communicate and advocate is really quite simple and obvious (once it is pointed out to someone who is or has been ensconced in the dominant scientific or another paradigm).

Learning the principle   is really just a matter of simple pattern recognition -- of observing the principle which is woven within  the entire fabric and history of science, et., al.  Rather than start out with the typical assumptions: "reality is space, time, energy, mass, space-time, energy-matter, etc.", and also lacking any model of ~consciousness, one can  look  inside those sets of dualities and notice that at the underlying, more unified level, "reality is structured~duality" -- starting out with the new fundamental generalization:  all things have some structure AND have and/or exhibit one or more dualities or differences.   Subsequent consideration shows that this feature is common to both physical and mental artifacts and categories.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Understanding the underlying general principle...

[Re: [jcs-online] How consciousness works 4/18/2017]


In attempt to illuminate more of the underlying general principle of NSD, consider the metaphor that paradigm change is akin to taking a circular path. You and I begin at the 'top' of a circle (12 noon/midnight as on a wall clock face), and , your and many many other's  paths is, let's say, clockwise where the first leg, is ALL about just accepting the dominant physics/physical  model, say, almost all the way around to 11.   Then, the physical model fails and you/others come up with various separate extensions or adaptations to just add the missing clockwise segment from eleven back to closure at the point of beginning.

My analysis and approach, however, takes, let's say, the counter-clockwise route. Step into the void. Start with a different structure and duality (than the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance everyone on the clockwise trade route begins with) ... And having acquired the underlying general principle, instantly my route circles or spirals  counter-clockwise to the point of beginning while accounting for all of the various NSD instances along the way.

Yeah, my 'lucky guess' may seem like a lazy, cheap trick, but actually, I've taken the more principled  and thus efficient approach.

To get what I mean by this, let's go back to, or continue on with  your and/or let's say Hameroff-Penrose's or any of the other second-leg clockwise extensions. Let's grant that you ALL are successful in varying degrees and you end up back at the point of beginning where you have one model for physical reality, and then you all have some second-leg extension termed 'The science of consciousness'.   Don't get me wrong. These ALL are valuable contributions and parts of the puzzles -- wonderful accomplishments.  However, step back an look at the next task that faces folks who inherit the disjointed two-step models.

That's right -- how to come up with the coherent, more principled, more unified account for  'both' or 'all' the different parts of science? 

Monday, March 27, 2017

..Seeking a thought worthy of speech:

"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"

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Re: How consciousness works

A 2nd reply to a part of your prior post... where you write: """By their nature, knowledge about Brownian motion does not differ from knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness -- they both are knowledge, the elements of the given person's version of Phenomenal Reality. The difference between them is that to get knowledge about Brownian motion we use the methods and models which ignore the agency of informational factor (we use the methods, models, and laws of Physics), while to get knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness we have to use the methods and models which take into account the agency of informational factor..However, as I see, your approach is different. You divide reality into "physical reality" and "mental reality". Is your "nested structured~duality" some modification of Cartesian dualism? """,
first,  I observe with my  tunnel vision that we use or take into account the 'agency of information factor'  in fabricating knowledge regarding BOTH Brownian motion AND consciousness. I think I vaguely see the distinction you are trying to make about 'information factor',  but I observe that where you say """(we use the methods, models, and laws of Physics)""",  ALL sorts of agencies of information factors are already involved and nested in the 'laws of Physics'.  If the audience is mesmerized into NOT seeing the nesting, then perhaps you should continue on to the cliff by the Sea. Otherwise, please consider what I am pointing out because it is another instance which arises naturally because  'Reality is NESTED structured~duality'.
Second,  I start out with "Reality is nested structured~duality." The divisions into 'physical and mental' or 'phenomenal and noumenal' are already present in the environment -- within the existing or dominant paradigm(s).    So I see that I am not dividing reality  but more accounting for the two pre-existing categories with the one new common denominator.  Thus, in saying, "Reality, both physical and mental realms", is nested structured~duality.",  I am respecting the existing distinction so that a believer of the dominant scientific paradigm can begin to migrate to the emerging, more unified understanding.   That is, things on the physical side are quite clearly nested stacks of NSD-like artifacts -- plus-minus arrangements of electrons, protons; wave-particle, electro-magnetic oscillations, etc.. And things in the mental realm are also some artifact which reflects, echoes, represents, etc., some other artifact. So, stuff  in both realms rides on the same, single, one underlying general NSD principle.
Thus, more correctly, the storyline I am advocating unifies rather than divides.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Re: An immodest proposal


Please consider that what you or the linked author call scientific rationality takes a moderately well-unified system and misunderstands and mis-frames it within a quite dysfunctional,  divided, subjective-objective motif. At the scientific level, the description is thus  deeply whacked out and fundamentally flawed so it stands to reason that related social, political, economic, etc., levels of orientation would also be quite a bit out of kilter.  Doesn't it?

The remedy, of course, is not anxiety-free, but relatively speaking, though incredibly unfamiliar and rare, changing scientific paradigms is a gentle walk in the park compared with the crazy lemmings to the sea marches that fearful divisions promote.   I am confident as this transition proceeds  tolerance will increase and the physical intuition of the more unified nature of our common reality will setting in with, and grow for all of us.

Don't  let others' fearful thoughts outrace you. Seek a thought worthy of speech.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm.

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

---In, wrote :

All, or None : (

The scientific rational approach to improving life is not working. Yes. many diseases have been eliminated, but new one's constantly replace them. For example, I suspect that the the slow-burning social crisis in the world is much worse than the readers and contributors to this forum realize. The chaos in the middle east and the widening fissures in European politics, a divided America, suggest the times might require a more substantial rethinking of scientific rationality than most have contemplated.

Wage stagnation in an era of unprecedented wealth, a culture of male worklessness in which older men take a disability and young men live with their parents and play video games, an epidemic of opioid abuse, a withdrawal from  marriage and civic engagement, a decline in life expectancy, and a rise in the suicide rate, pollution, global warming, and so on.


Friday, January 27, 2017

Re: [jcs-online] The Hive Mind

Errol, ....Serge, others...

Relating to your question about, hivemind and your examples and question to Serge of, "How do you define 'think'?", below,   please notice that I define 'think' and 'consciousness' as structural coding (or nested structural coding) which fits for all your microbial communications instances. 
Also, please notice that the structural coding I generally refer to is in the energy-related ~6^n hydrogen-bonded ordered water stacks continually forming at aerobic respiration sites. Also, please notice that these sites, and thus the account I advocate and bring forward are INSIDE  neurons (and other cells), thus differing a bit from the neuron theory model  which Jonathan and many others may advocate.  Also please note the nested organization of: ordered water structures (and energy) within respiration sites within neurons within brain structures within environmental vibrations within hivemind conveyed within protein folding markings in the English language words and sentences resonating here within our various screens, etc..

The thing with this structural coding within the respiration reaction is it is integrated with energy collection and conservation and thus structural codings which associate with energy conservation, and/or associated development of what we call enzymatic structures which replicate DO have or offer some survival or sustenance advantage. And, this structural coding advantage, if you think about it, is also quite a bit like the value we find in the empirical 'proofs' of our so-called objective science.   Things that strongly repeat and also conserve energy generally have value and/or persist and re-occur. 

[As an aside, please notice that  the storyline I am advocating, including the 6^n structural coding in water forming in the respiration reaction and besides also demonstrating multiple states and variable mass density in increments of 1/2 spins, flows from  empirical 'proof' or basis found  in the analog math of magnetic tetrahedron. Learning the analog math IS acquiring physical intuition via the tactile channel on the things listed herein.]

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Fovea within peripheral fields as attention within consciousness.

(Re: Even if the "hard problem" is a real problem...)
Hi, Verna,  

Regarding your vision...points...line...racetrack ideas, I believe you may be led astray by the wonders of your intact peripheral vision.
That is,  where you talk about viewing the start point and some half-way point down the track and then tracing a straight line from point A to B,  in my low-vision condition (which I often consider a special gift), I have become aware that without decent peripheral vision, viewing point A does not mean also viewing point B.  Or, viewing the words on the left of a post on screen, does not include also seeing the words at the right end of the same line of text.  And, it seems to me that locating point B with the fovea or one's central vision under the reduced, low vision condition is more of a random walk and NOT a straight line trace. Finally, one finds and focuses on the location of point B, but then, point A has usually disappeared.
It may seem like I am lamenting my loss, but I am really trying to point out that what ~people are running is a ~two-layered system where peripheral fields of vision give an overall background view, and within that is nested the roving fovea which seems to perform the line tracing that you describe. I am saying, the straight line trace only occurs given the concurrent background view.
Interestingly, I think,  these nested and separate vision systems are very much like attention wandering around in the un-sub-conscious terrain, focusing upon various points of interest. The fovea is like a visual attention.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Accounting for consicousness as illusion

[Believe it or not, I started this post before reading the titles  posted on 1/11/2017 [xx] and finished it before reading any of those. (rf)

Another nice thing that the trial theory I advocate (labeled NSD) does is give a fairly vaporous but adequate  and informative account of the often stated impression or belief that consciousness is illusory; all is maya, etc.

That is, by learning reality is NSD and considering 'consciousness' in terms of nested structural coding (within our various energetic and sp^3 molecular components), participants can quickly scribble up a decent, albeit, approximate structurally coded image and understanding which is basically an energy-related and/or energy-value-founded primary internal language upon which rides ALL of our secondary, various protein-folded words and meanings.

Now, why make being able to give an "account of  illusion" a proper validation test for   various trial theories of consciousness? 

For one thing, as I said, it is a popular or prevailing notion or trait associated with consciousness by a very large number of people. For another, the account for it's illusory nature also can account for the persistence of the absence of a coherent understanding and/or model of consciousness. 

For another, of course, it turns out that giving such an account flows rather naturally and easily from focusing in on  nested structural coding in our respiration reaction.  With that view, we can easily see that "the 'brain' is processing materials and energy" as a primary activity, and not "the 'brain' is processing information", as many people and advocates of information-related models try to maintain.

The NSD/NSC view informs us that we have  internal energetic-materials transactions which operate inherently.  On top of this, are our protein-folded words and descriptive expressions, most of which are in service for group communication and ~education from one participant to others. Coordinated groups can accomplish different sets of transactions than individuals can accomplish.  [xx]...

Yet, notice that when we search for the meaning in our verbal meanings, what we discover is protein-folding which has an energetic value which appears to tend toward sustaining the group and individual(s) and so, in a very real way all of the verbal description and meanings evaporate and prove themselves to not be absolute valued -- illusory; Maya.

A quasi-mathematical ~proof or demonstration of this is available in the NSD analog math.  At it's simplest state, consider two rod magnets, one held in each hand. There are two ways of obtaining repulsion based on aligning the different ends.  Our typical way of describing this further is to claim that one magnet end is 'north' and the other end 'south'. We  then develop an entirely fanciful, but VERY helpful  word-full navigational story where we develop a map and understanding of the Earth's 'northern hemisphere' etc., relative to how rod magnets align in the Earth's magnetic field and with the labeling conventions that groups agree to.  Magnet ends which align roughly left-ish of the  'North Star' in the 'northern hemisphere' are said to be the 'north' end or pole of the magnet, making the Earth's pole that the (compass) magnet points toward the 'south' pole of the Earth's magnetic field. And so it goes...

Notice that our word-full description is all based  on a convenient but unfounded  procedural choice --We'll call this end 'north'.  We adopt a convention.  If or when extra-terrestrials land and inform us that everyone else in the galaxy goes by the opposite convention, we may need to adopt a different word-full labeling scheme.

Our word-full descriptions and meanings are a bit illusory.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Changing the western scientific paradigm.

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

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Re: wtf universal computation

Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation


FYI, just to refresh your recollection,  in your earlier Dec 19th post you wrote: "[EM]When does free will occur timewise?  It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft."

So, your "timewise" inquiry, to me, is you bringing up time first. 

Also, to me, it is you exposing some of  the ingrained, embedded temporal assumption(s) in the dominant scientific paradigm that seem to guide or support your and others'  --Is it rightly called?-- fatalistic thinking, including your rationalizations wrt to free will as a no-show.  Or, perhaps how you see it, more fairly, is in your storyline you think you adequately and accurately define reality and behavior in terms of genetics and environmental experience alone, thus with with no need or room for free will.  And, within that gameboard, Errol, you do do a consistent  job repeating your mantra.

From  my perspective, where reality is nested structured~duality (NSD), and on a more applied level: nested structural coding,  I notice that even Darwin points out that environmental conditions influence genetics, that is, these various structural codings are nested and intertwined.  Yet, in your model, I don't see where  you  acknowledge  even that small the inherent nesting and thus, to me. it looks like your model is not of the reality we inhabit and thus your conclusions about the existence, or not, of free will strike me as hollow and/or motivated by other, less rational or scientific objectives.

As for your questions about influencing or changing one's genetics,  current events in genetic engineering give an affirmative or developing answer. As well,  people can or do influence or change their sons' and daughters' and grand-children's genetics. Legalistically, that's not changing my individual genetics... or is it?

Considering the nesting between environmental conditions and genetic changes,  it does appear that we all can follow an intuition to move out of one valley or climate to others where different foods and resources exist, all of which induce other nested changes.

More comments below...