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? 

The trouble is,  notice that all this paradigm mechanics stuff is wildly sensitive to and/or  completely dependent upon initial conditions. You and Stuart and Roger will have already formed and strengthened and replicated all the various protein structures that go into recounting your various two-leg models and it's perhaps just a physical impossibility or vastly unlikely, that such prior initial conditions can or will be dismantled within your remaining lifetimes. You will have "succeeded" at your chosen path and clockwise approach, but in so doing will have fashioned together a disjointed 'science' that requires yet another paradigm scientific shift.

In the single-step, counter-clockwise approach that I am advocating, participants shift directly to the more robust, more unified underlying general principle and initial condition and analog math.

Again, you and others MAY be able to dial back all the way  to the  assumption at or near to the start of your approach.   I'm saying that move, basically, is in adopting the familiar western Cartesian cube/subject-object perspective.  Acknowledging the underlying general principle, though, participants can now observe and accept and experiment with assuming a different structure and a different duality -- a different structured~duality.   And as I have shown in various ways, the tetrahedron/north-south instance  has many, many advantages.

With that imagery in mind, let's consider more...

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on April 3, 2017 wrote:
>you use one method for consciousness-related material, and you use 
>another, different method for physical-related events.  So, in essence
> you have or are already pre-formalizing or asserting the separation.
[S.P.] The "separation" pertains to the methods I use to describe the events. It is because I define the events by the method, but not by the discipline.

[rf]  You are still fashioning your instance of structured~duality as a separation. You try to make the distinction that physical models don't involve ~information factors (but rest on 'laws of physics'. I am pointing out that the laws of physics are already a large stack of information factors and you are merely denying or dissociating from that fact.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> but I observe and understand that "the laws of Physics" involve and
> ~are a VERY large pile of information factor(s).
[S.P.] When accounting for the Brownian motion we may safely ignore the activity of informational factor. Can you name such a physical event which requires taking into account the activity of informational factor?

[rf] Dial back to the days before Brownian motion was   known or described and accepted within the terms and accounts currently given. So, before, there is no or a different (informational/empirically demonstrable) account. After the development and communication of the new account, we acquire the new (informational) account.

The point is, you and others, we, cannot make ANY reference to ANY physical  event without invoking and relying upon the activity of prior developed information factors.  So, your assumption that you can ignore or claim them irrelevant  is sort of evidence that you are denying or mistaken about reality. 

[sp..] For me, if the event requires taking into account the activity of informational factor (like the effect of nonlocal entanglement, or ball lightning, etc.), then it is already not an event which pertains to Physics.

[rf] I hear what you are trying to say, but please notice that  you are just inheriting the giant pile of information factors that make up the accounts of currently accepted 'laws of physics'.  Is it possible for you to see and acknowledge that, Serge?
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
>>[S.P.] My mind automatically replaces "NSD" with "abracadabra", 
>>and I can do nothing with this, alas! :-)
>[rf]   I expect it has to, or you have to. Otherwise, you are right up 
>against it, facing learning something new and, in this case, also 
>changing your scientific paradigm. It's disruptive, for a while.
[S.P.] The best way to learn something new is to compare it with something we already know. Why not to start with some examples from our everyday practice of living. Is "NSD" about some relation? If yes, then the relation between what and what? I understand that you are looking for commonalities rather than differences between physical events and consciousness-related events, but what makes your NSD to be a common denominator? This is still not clear for me.

[rf] See this post's opening comments above. Also, here's the difficult truth: NSD is the common denominator 'because' it is the common denominator. It's not because 'I say it is', even though I have coined the term and have been fortunate enough to observe and communicate the underlying principle.  We are clearly all fashioning our various instances of NSD, even down into the various structurally coded protein structures that relate to our expressions, and we each nest and fold levels of structured~duality in various logical and/or illogical ways, giving priority to some levels and less to others.

If you want to consider 'relations of what to what', you may want to consider NSD as a way to assess and consider and understand  different facets and features of paradigms since it is a pretty good account of the metadigm -- the paradigm of paradigms: pick a structure; pick one or more dualities -- build outward to those limits.    Thus, we have the eastern Tao/yin-yang, or the basis of the western scientific Cartesian cube/subject-object instance (with subsequent epi-cycles).

It may just be difficult or impossible for you, but try to notice that if  or as you focus on differences and separations, you are inherently moving away from  more unified, more general insights and discoveries.  Seeking the common fatures leads to more unified, more general relations.  We are not really seeking a 'science of consciousness'. We are seeking an improved science and scientific understanding.  And this mean shifting scientific paradigms.

[sp..] Second, I also talk about the necessity to adopt some new scientific paradigm if we want to make a progress on the way of explaining consciousness. But, in my case, even if we adopt the new paradigm, this does not reject the existing paradigm -- we can easily return back to the existing paradigm when and where it is appropriate. In simpler terms, I consider the existing dominant paradigm just as a special case of the new paradigm I suggest.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy

[rf]  People have been talking about the emerging new scientific paradigm for most of the 20th century, well before Capra's 'Tao of Physics', etc., etc. My storyline rests in part  on R. Buckminster Fuller's contributions which started up in the 1930-1950's.

The approach I am advocating reveals the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity which in the domiant, waning paradigm manifested as the binary choice between subjective and objective categories (plus the other various confusions and mis-understandings).   As well, the analog math provides rather immediate, repeatable units of  physical intuition  on multiple states and variable mass-density.  Notice how that does not reduce down to a clear, simple 'special case' when mashed into the complexified, rather confused  abstract math framework in the waning paradigm. It certainly has its place and utility, but it does not provide the readily available physical intuition for  members of the global classroom.

I appreciate your persistence, Serge. but I can understand that you looking for or at separations may just prevent you grasping NSD.

Thank you for attempting it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment