Sunday, December 16, 2018

Before words?

 (Scientific Basic Of Consciousness Google-Groups - Dec 16, 2018)

John, others, 

In follow-up to the question of how migrating to NSD/magnetic tetrahedra catalyzes acquisition of physical intuition... Kant's Transcendental Idealism seems relevant.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism allegedly says space and time are subjective items ~forming our intuition.  Maybe others can clarify or correct if I misinterpret or add too much of my bias. See:

...the idea here is, NSD turns out to be a more accurate basis of our intuition and our physical intuition.   Our intuition is not formed of "space and time" but of "nested structured~duality". The magnetic tetrahedral analog math is a close enough approximation of the real thing so as to be able to deliver the improved yield.

Whether ~this ~refutes T.I., or just drills down through and replaces "space and time" with "nested structured~duality"  is not clear to me today and may be irrelevant. Both approximations are necessary and/or helpful.The bigger issue of switching to a more deeply, fundamentally nested  model, I think, overrides most other considerations.  That is, NSD and/or its spectrum of repeatable subjectivity (SORS) soundly disrupts the familiar or popular subjective-objective method of assessing or  of conceptualizing and categorizing, so various items, even on Kant's gameboard, get shifted around.

That is, he is saying (or I am interpreting wildly from skimming the Wikipedia article), that we have one apparently objective model founded on objects moving about within space and time -- which itself is like a flat nesting image: objects within space (and/or time).

But then he fashions together a ladder and climbs up to view "Transcendental Idealism" to notice that that flat objective model is mysteriously nested within  or emerging from our intuition which appears to be formed of subjective "space" and "time".   But (I assume or project) no where does he notice the fundamental, but simplified  nested ~structure that he is also  relying upon. (OR, he's relying on the spiritual nesting and does not consider it necessary or perhaps possible to make it scientifically explicit.)

Anyway, he's sketching out a problematic nesting and inaccurate structure problem compounded  with a related missing spectrum of repeatable subjectivity problem. It's excellent for an initial approximation or one in the succession of approximations, but at some point it reaches its limits and folds away.

Best regards,

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ralph Frost wrote:
Dear John,

In attempt to summarize or clarify further from this morning's post,  if or once a reader can provisionally consider "reality being nested structured~duality",  what is structured turns out to be different instances of structured~duality (as one word) -- one instance for the so-called thing itself and some other instances for  all the various communicable descriptions of the thing itself.

People have the tendency or ability discover, create, stack and/or balance  these instances of nested structured~duality, which, of course, just creates other instances of nested structured~duality.