Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

15621Re: [jcs-online] From Noumenal Reality to the theory of consciousness

Expand Messages
  • Serge Patlavskiy
    May 23
      -
      Verna Muitt <verna.vm@...> on May 19, 2017 wrote:
      >OK.  I’ll pretend to be a newborn infant opening its eyes for the 
      >first time..... since everything I’ve learned since then is within a 
      >framework created as I experienced the world.
      <skip>
      >So your ‘postulate’ about ‘Noumenal Reality’ – is that an 
      >assumption or an hypothesis of a ‘physical reality’?
      <skip>
      > I may be ready to go to that third floor at last.....
      .
      [S.P.] This post is a continuation of my post #15600 on May 15, 2017 (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15600 ).
      .
      Now then, as you remember, in my previous post I was telling a story. Once upon a time there was a man. He lived on a farm. He had a multi-storied barn and four baskets on every floor. The baskets were labeled: the D basket; the GS basket; the AT basket; and the MT basket. To move between the floors, the man used a ladder.
      .
      The MT basket is for postulates, for assertions which are accepted without proofs, for general assertions about Reality, for general laws and principles, for general method and systems of models, for belief systems, for points of view, for life-long experience, and, of course, for specially constructed meta-theories.
      .
      The AT basket is for assertions which explain something and predict something. 
      .
      The GS basket is for assertions on generalizing and systematizing the observational and research data, and for hypotheses.
      .
      The D basket is for simple facts, for results of observations, for results of experimentation and amassing research data. It is for facts known from everyday life. These facts are the results of observations -- we just describe what we see or experience (the letter "D" is for "description). We explain nothing while formulating the D-level intellectual products.
      .
      On one fine day, a man expressed a desire to know how it is possible that he is able to have knowledge about the outer world. To the point, 99,(9)% of humans do not bother asking themselves of such questions -- they just live happily and use their natural ability to have knowledge about the outer world for satisfying own current needs. 
      .
      So, in trying to get answers, the man started to sort out his assertions and put them into different baskets. 
      .
      His "1-st floor, MT basket" assertion was: "I postulate Noumenal Reality (or the outer world) as existing objectively and independently of my ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world." This assertion is not a hypothesis. Why? Because it is not a result of generalization and systematization of research and observational data. It is not the GS-level intellectual product. Instead, it is a postulate. It is an assertion accepted without proofs. It is the MT-level intellectual product. It is what the man believes in.
      .
      His "2-nd floor, D basket" assertion was: "There is a complex system which entropic characteristic depends equally on these three factors: informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor."  So, this is a simple observational fact from which the object of study (namely, the ability to have knowledge about the outer world) can be isolated from. The task now is how to construct the appropriate tools which can be used to isolate our object of study from the observational fact. We need something like a can-opener. 
      .
      To use a can-opener to open the cans is a certain method. Another method to open the cans is to rub the can's lid on a hard stone. The lid's metal facet will rub away and the can becomes opened. 
      .
      ==========================
      Now, it is time to take a ladder and to climb to the third floor.
      .
      So, the 3-rd floor, MT basket will be filled with the following items:
      1) we name our meta-theory "Nonstatanalysis" (I explain why it has such a name);
      2) cognitive space; the A-type and B-type of cognitive space;
      3) the First basic idea of Nonstatanalysis: "to explain Reality in all its complexity, the subject of cognition has to conduct the process of cognition as in the A-space, so in the B-space";
      3) transitions from one cognitive space to another;
      4) the algorithms of interspatial transitions (I consider 7 cognitive paradoxes);
      5) existential and developmental conditions;
      6) the criteria of formal correctness; (and other items too).
      .
      The 3-rd floor, AT basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) the applied ADC theory (it consists of 39 assertions);
      2) the applied theory of sense and relation -- it is on how to create a basis of prime concepts (or a language we will use); here, I consider 12 principles of cognitive sense setting.
      .
      The 3-rd floor, D basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) practicing in enframing the entity as an object of study;
      2) consideration of simple facts about various consciousness-related phenomena (including the ones listed on Rosemary Rock-Evans' site);
      .
      ==========================
      Then we take a ladder and climb to the fourth floor.
      .
      So, the 4-th floor, MT basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) the Second basic idea of Nonstatanalysis: "the subject of cognition is able to conduct the process of cognition because as Noumenal Reality so the very process of cognition (namely, its mechanisms) obey the same general natural laws";
      2) the scheme of the process of cognition;
      3) the postulate on existence of the integrated information system (or IIS for short);
      4) the properties of IIS (I consider 13 universal properties);
      5) the law of IIS development (I consider this law together with its 15 sub-laws);
      6) the method of IIS (we will use this method to isolate consciousness from the complex system);
      7) the system of models, namely, the AS-DIS-DEC models and seven types of inter-model transitions; 
      8) the idea of graphic modeling; four degrees of complexity of the integrated information systems (for details, see http://generaltheory.webs.com/ElaborNewParadigm.pdf  Fig.12);
      9) the law of conservation of consciousness;
      10) the law of entropy conservation;
      11) a special system of proofs; (and other items too).
      .
      The 4-th floor, AT basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) the applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness;
      2) the applied theory of consciousness;
      3) the applied theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems;
      4) the idea of a new paradigm of Interdisciplinary Investigations.
      .
      The 4-th floor, D basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) training on applying the first-person approach and obtaining unique personal data due to studying own exemplar of consciousness; (and other items too).
      .
      ==========================
      And, finally, we take a ladder and climb to the fifth floor.
      .
      So, the 5-th floor, MT basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) a Third basic idea of Nonstatanalysis, namely, a solution to the problem of one-to-one correspondence between Phenomenal Reality and Noumenal Reality;
      2) Nonstatanalysis and Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General System Theory;
      3) Nonstatanalysis and the Gödel second incompleteness theorem; a solution to the problem of functional tautology;
      4) the General Law of Simultaneity and the Principle of Eternity;
      5) the types of intellectual products (I consider 9 types);
      6) on relation between Nonstatanalysis and Philosophy.
      .
      The 5-th floor, AT basket will be filled with the following items:
      1) further elaboration of the applied theory of consciousness; I consider the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of knowledge and answer the question of how I can have knowledge about the outer world;
      2) the applied theory of nonlocal entanglement;
      3) the applied theory of artificial intelligence;
      4) the applied theory of disease (now still under construction);
      5) further elaboration of the applied ADC theory (I consider the problem of canons pertaining to every level of intellectual products).
      .
      The 5-th floor, D basket will be filled with assertions pertaining to:
      1) the Principle of Theory Predominance, which holds that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness;
      2) safety measures and personal responsibility when acquiring knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness; (and other items too).
      .
      ==========================
      .
      Summing up, there are much more questions that will be considered at every floor. For example, the MT baskets at the different floors will be filled also with 22 postulates and 10 general principles. The GS baskets of the third, fourth, and fifth floor will be filled, in total, with 14 hypotheses. 
      .
      To the point, at every floor, there must be a completed group of intellectual products (the word "completed" means that the assertions pertaining to different baskets must correspond to each other). So, the explanatory framework stays consistent at every floor. 
      .
      Also, the constructed explanatory framework is irreducibly complex -- it can work only if being assembled on all its five floors. A good analogy here is a space ship -- if some constructive element is missing, it will not be able to start flying.
      .
      Why I am asking to forget for the time being everything you have known before? It is because I suggest a special meta-theory. A meta-theory (as the MT-level intellectual product) may be treated as an operation system, and the applied theories (the AT-level intellectual products) may be treated as applications we run under the given operation system. So, in case you use the MacOS and you want to assess the MS Windows, you have first to go out of MacOS, reboot your computer, and to load the MS Windows. Hope this analogy is helpful.
      .
      Now then, if a person is young and teachable, then it will take him/her not more than 10 years of everyday diligent work to learn and then to apply my approach.
      .
      If there are some questions, then indicate which floor and a basket it pertains to.
      .
      Best,
      Serge Patlavskiy


      From: "'Verna Muitt' verna.vm@... [jcs-online]" <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
      To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:27 AM
      Subject: Re: [jcs-online] From Noumenal Reality to the theory of consciousness



      Serge,
       
      you say:  
      [S.P.] There is a saying that we cannot teach old dog new tricks. But what about the following trick? Stretch your hands before you and imagine that you hold everything you know in your right hand, and you hold my explanatory framework in your left hand. Now, forget for the time being about what you hold in your right hand and try to use only what you hold in your left hand.
       
      [VM]  OK.  I’ll pretend to be a newborn infant opening its eyes for the first time..... since everything I’ve learned since then is within a framework created as I experienced the world.  However, at a new group meeting for the first time, we’ve discovered that we each have a very different ‘take’ on what “consciousness” is, so I’ll practise the art of ‘charity of interpretation’, and try to dismiss my own framework while trying to take yours on board.  I’ll probably not be able to make sense of the ‘pegs’ you use, so I’ll need charity of interpretation of my difficulties on your part, too, and recognition of where I am making a ‘wrong’ assumption in the case of your belief system.
       
      So your ‘postulate’ about ‘Noumenal Reality’ – is that an assumption or an hypothesis of a ‘physical reality’?  (the two are different in my scheme of things).  I’m beginning to see that I too treat the ‘physical’ as if it were ‘real’ sometimes, but always return it to the phenomenal reality world in the end.
       
      A simple “Noumenal reality is an assumption” (or an hypothesis) will allow me to stand on the your correct side from the start.
       
      best wishes
       
      Verna
       
      Sent: Thursday, 18 May, 2017 1:31 AM
      Subject: Re: [jcs-online] From Noumenal Reality to the theory of consciousness
       
       
      -
      Verna Muitt <verna.vm@...> on May 16, 2017 wrote:
      > I think here you are asking
      the impossible, ...
      .
      [S.P.] There is a saying that we cannot teach old dog new tricks. But what about the following trick? Stretch your hands before you and imagine that you hold everything you know in your right hand, and you hold my explanatory framework in your left hand. Now, forget for the time being about what you hold in your right hand and try to use only what you hold in your left hand.
      .
      [Verna Muitt] wrote:
      > And now you have introduced a
      duality into your framework:  that
      >1) there is a special ‘nature’
      of the object of study (the ability to obtain
      > knowledge) which will require
      different, special tools to be constructed,
      >and 2) this object of study is
      just like any other object of study ‘known
      > to me before’ (only by means
      of the phenomenal).   I am not clear here
      >just how these two natures
      differ,...
      .
      [S.P.] Do you see a difference between using your consciousness to obtain knowledge about the outer world, and using your consciousness to obtain knowledge about the very mechanisms of consciousness, or about how your consciousness can obtain knowledge? What "duality" you are talking about here? I talk about two possible ways of solving the conundrum of consciousness: the one based on a third-person approach and the one based on a first-person approach.
      .
      [Verna Muitt] wrote:
      > this is where you are
      beginning to slide into a dual-aspect monism,
      .
      [S.P.] My goodness! Verna, hold horses, please! The imagination should not be so hectic. :-) We are on the first floor yet! I am stating the simple facts only. I have no aim to explain everything while on the first floor! Your remark clearly violates elementary logic and common sense, since you cannot assess my approach without learning it in the first place. You cannot judge about the elephant if you are the ant sitting on the elephant's back.
      .
      [Verna Muitt] wrote:
      > And here is the point where
      you and I diverge, for I need to know
      >just how you have any knowledge
      at all
      .
      [S.P.] Have you read my post attentively? As I said I will answer this question when we reach the fifth floor. Is your task to learn my approach or to present your own approach?
      .
      [Verna Muitt] wrote:
      > but I need some indications of
      where you stand on my comments
      >on my perception that your
      Phenomenal Reality and your Noumenal
      >Reality are both still within
      the phenomenal experiential framework ...
      .
      [S.P.] I am presenting my approach and do not care of your approach at this very moment! I do not use such word as "perception"! I do not use such phrase as "phenomenal experiential framework"! If you want to present your approach, then do this in a separate post. If you want to learn my approach then start from practicing the above mentioned trick.
      .
      Best,
      Serge Patlavskiy
       


      From: "'Verna Muitt' verna.vm@... [jcs-online]" <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
      To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:43 PM
      Subject: Re: [jcs-online] From Noumenal Reality to the theory of consciousness
       


      Serge,  first of all, thanks for taking the time to put your complex theory and ideas into a format accessible to the layperson – brilliant!   I’ll interleave in blue below my first attempt to get to grips with our differences, though first I need to deal with your warning:
       
      “
      [[[WARNING!!! Pretend you have never heard the words "informational", "material", "energetic", "entropic", "model", "complex system", etc. -- do you remember that I have asked you to forget about everything you have learned before?]]]”.
       
      I think here you are asking the impossible, for I need some conceptual base underpinning any attempted interpretation of those otherwise arbitrary sounds/words you are using to convey your own (internal) notions and worldview. We cannot think without using concepts.       I will, though, only ask for clarification on points I think are basic to any ‘proper’ understanding between us.
      .
      Sent: Monday, 15 May, 2017 3:22 AM
      Subject: [jcs-online] From Noumenal Reality to the theory of consciousness
       
       
      -
      Verna Muitt <verna.vm@...> on May 8, 2017 wrote:
      > I’m not sure that
      I’ve ever completely accepted the way that
      >you use 'noumenal
      reality'...
      <skip>
      >My puzzlement is
      just how you can construct a theory on the basis
      > of a postulate
      (noumenal reality) ...
      <skip>
      >So my first big
      question is:  How can we ever bring together the
      >mental (as
      experienced) and the physical (as presumed), without
      >any other sense to
      link them.
      .
      [S.P.] First things first: forget about Kant, Dehaene, and about anything you have learned in this field before. My approach is not based on anybody's approach. I give a strict definition to every term I use. So, don't try to understand my approach being based on your own understanding of the terms you see in my texts.
      .
      So, I will start from the very beginning. Suppose, I am a man who just lives his life. I have got some life experience -- I have certain knowledge about the outer world I live in. But, on one fine day I ask myself: "I can obtain knowledge about the outer world -- this is a fact for me. My relatives and other persons, and my pets as well, seems also possess the ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world. Maybe, all other living organisms possess the ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world. So, can I obtain knowledge about the very ability to obtain knowledge?". 
       
      I’m presuming that you are equating ‘life experience’ with ‘phenomenal reality’.  Also your simple statement of (the being of) this ‘outer world’ does not refer to how you acquired knowledge of the fact of this outer world, nor to how you acquired this ‘certain knowledge’ in the first place.   These are surely important elements needing explanation. 
       
      Let me now sort out the above assertions. So,
      1) my assertion -- "I can obtain knowledge about the outer world -- this is a simple fact for me." -- is of  the level of description (or the D-level for short);
       
      OK.  on what does this description rest – your phenomenal experiences?
       
      2) my assertion -- "My relatives and other persons, and my pets as well seems also possess the ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world. Maybe, all other living organisms possess the ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world." -- is of the level of generalization and systematization (or the GS-level for short); the words "maybe" or "it seems" indicate that I formulate a hypothesis;
       
      OK, if I come to believe that others like me have similar phenomenal experiences to mine, then I accept that there may be a generalization of phenomenal experiences to a theory of the product of the grouping of these experiences: our Phenomenal Reality.  (My term is ‘perceptual world’).
      .
      3) my assertion -- "So, can I obtain knowledge about the very ability to obtain knowledge?" -- is of the level of applied theory (or the AT-level for short). This is because I want to construct some explanatory framework able to account for the object of study "the very ability to obtain knowledge".
       
      Now you seem to be wanting to apply the very same analytical/synthetic processes which produced the ‘unity’ of the Phenomenal World to that unity/product per se (wanting to analyse the object of study and synthesize a framework/theory to explain it).  OK, but it comes via the same subjective internal processes, so is simply a further instance of subjectivity/phenomenality. 
       
      Here I stop and start to think what to do next and which way to follow. Thecase is that I can choose between two ways. One way is to accept that the object of study -- "the very ability to obtain knowledge" -- can be explained just like any other object of study known for me before like "Why the birds fly?", "Why the grass is green?", "How a wall-clock works?", and so on. Another way to follow is that, to explain the object of study "the very ability to obtain knowledge", it will require for me to construct special tools which would have to correspond to the nature of the object of study. So, I choose the second way and formulate the following assertion:
       
      And now you have introduced a duality into your framework:  that 1) there is a special ‘nature’ of the object of study (the ability to obtain knowledge) which will require different, special tools to be constructed, and 2) this object of study is just like any other object of study ‘known to me before’ (only by means of the phenomenal).   I am not clear here just how these two natures differ, though I suspect (perhaps wrongly, of course) that you are here introducing a ‘physical’ reality without proper justification.  It needs to be described just how these two aspects of the ‘same’ thing, (consciousness?) differ, as I believe this is where you are beginning to slide into a dual-aspect monism, where the same non-defined/undefinable object/thing is approached via very different pathways of belief: the one being experience per se, the other arising from the conceptual mechanisms – but both arise in the mental framework of the experiencing being, though simply at different levels.
      .
      4) "I postulate Noumenal Reality (or the outer world) as existing objectively and independently of my ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world." -- this assertion is of the level of meta-theory (or the MT-level for short).
       
      And here is the point where you and I diverge, for I need to know just how you have any knowledge at all of this external world without its being based in phenomenal experiencing – how can I know anything about the ‘external’ world directly and without needing/having any sense data in respect of it?   I’ve tried long and hard to work this one out over the years, but have not had any success at all.  Until I can understand your position on this area of your notion I cannot make sense of the movement from the mental aspect of the Phenomenal be-ing to your assertions about the ‘physical’ be-ing of the Noumenal (or so the latter seems to me).
      .
      Now, imagine a multistory building which has an elevator. The four assertions mentioned above are on the first floor -- they are, as if, put into four baskets titled "D", "GS", "AT", and "MT". The set of these assertions is completed, in sense that these assertions are logically linked, and the set of these assertions is consistent. To the point, if some other man formulates the MT-level assertion -- "There is an ability to obtain knowledge about the outer world because such is God's design"-- then his building will be down the street. :-)
      .
      Then I take an elevator and go up to the second floor. On this floor there are also four baskets which I will fill up with assertions. Now then, after having formulatedthe MT-level assertion on the first floor (see above), I go up to the second floor and formulate the following assertion:
      .
      "The all I know about the outer world is due to my ability to obtain knowledge, and I will use the term "consciousness" to stand for this my ability." -- I put this assertion into "AT" basket. Why? Because this assertion has, what I call, (some rudimentary) explanatory power. (When I go from floor to floor my definition of consciousness will become more and more elaborate, and explanatory and predictive power of my theory of consciousness will become more and more pronounced).
      .
      Then, I formulate a new assertion and put it into "MT" basket:
      "I will call "Phenomenal Reality" the totality of my knowledge about the outer world. Phenomenal Reality is a model of Noumenal Reality."
      .
      Then I formulate a new assertion and put it into "GS" basket:
      "It seems we all share the same Noumenal Reality, and, in so doing, each of us possesses its own version of Phenomenal Reality".
      .
      Now I will have to formulate some assertion and put it into "D" basket. As was indicated above, the "D" basket is for simple facts. A simple fact known for me is that if we need some useful substance (like iron, petrol, etc.) we have to isolate it from the ore or any other raw substance. Even if you find a gem, for it to get its true value, it must be faceted. So, I ask myself: which simple facts are known for me that my object of study (here, consciousness) can be isolated from?
      .
      Suppose, I am a porter -- I carry on a pottery business -- as any person I must earn my living somehow. I know what is "good" and what is "bad". I know what is "good life" and what is "bad life". I know what it means when the business is prosperous and what it means when the business is in decadence. 
      .
      I also know what the prosperity of my pottery business depends on. The simple fact known for me is that prosperity of my pottery business depends on the following three factors:
      .
      1) on what knowledge (information, skill, imagination, etc.) of how to produce pottery I have -- I call this factor "informational";
      2) on what material/physical substance like clay I have -- I call this factor "material".
      .
      Then, I have a fact that, when producing pottery, I have to turn the material substance from one state and shape into other state and shape. For example, at first, I have a shapeless piece of clay which has enough plasticity (as certain physical property). But, at the end, I have a physical object (e.g., a jug) which already has a different shape and enough hardness and waterproofness (as different physical properties).
      .
      3) So, I call "energetic" the factor which helps to change the state and shape of the material/physical substance, and this one is the third factor that prosperity of my pottery business depends on.
      .
      The interplay of these three factors (namely, informational, material, and energetic) gives me the characteristic of prosperity of the pottery business as of some complex system. I call this characteristic "entropy", or a measure of order, or a measure of goodness/badness. This characteristic shows how good (ordered, successful, etc.) my business is.
      .
      What this "interplay" may be resulting in? For example, if I have bad knowledge, good material substance, and enough energy, my business may be in decadence -- the value of entropic characteristic of a system{pottery business} may be high. This means that, despite of having got a good clay and enough energy, my jugs will be bad in case I have not got enough/required knowledge (or experience) of how to produce pottery.
      .
      However, if I havegood knowledge, bad substance, and enough energy, my business may prosper -- the value of entropic characteristic of a system{pottery business} may be low. It means that having got good knowledge and enough energy, I can produce good jags even despite of having got bad clay. And so on -- there are a lot of possibilities here.
      .
      [[[WARNING!!! Pretend you have never heard the words "informational", "material", "energetic", "entropic", "model", "complex system", etc. -- do you remember that I have asked you to forget about everything you have learned before?]]]
      .
      Now then, I put into basket "D" the fact about a complex system which entropic characteristic depends equally on these three factors: informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor. So, the object of study which I call "consciousness" can be isolated from such a complex system because of the presence of informational factor -- it is one of three factors that the complex system's entropic characteristic depends on.
      .
      Now, I have to elaborate special tools (models, methods, etc.) able to deal with whole complex systems. I formulate such a task because I know a simple fact that to open a tin of sprats I need a can-opener as a tool, or a tool able to deal with tins.
      .
      But, before taking up the elevator again and going to a third floor to start constructing the required tools, I would like to make two very important remarks. First, such concepts as "informational factor", "material factor", and "energetic factor" have sense ONLY if being considered as pertaining together to the same whole complex system. Being considered apart, each of the mentioned factors looses its sense.
      .
      And, a second remark. The entropy I am talking about is subject-dependent. Let me show what it means to have a goal. Suppose, the value of entropic characteristic of the system{my life} is S'. The system{my life} with S' is for the case when I am alone, of poor health, and live from hand to mouth in a small bungalow. Then I set the value of entropic characteristic of the system{my life} to be S''. The system{my life} with S'' is for the case when I have a beautiful wife, three (my own) kids, a big house with a swimming pool, a posh car, a highly paid job, and a perfect health.
      .
      Therefore, "to have an aim", "to have a desire", "to solve a problem", etc. means to set a certain value of entropic characteristic to some complex system.
      .
      Now it is time to go to the third floor.
      .
      <will be continued>
      .
      Note: as one may see, the complexity of my approach (and the amount of text required to describe my approach) increases in geometrical progression as I go from floor to floor. Only after we reach the fifth floor we will touch on how the physical (sensory) signals (as the elements of Noumenal Reality) become transformed into experience, or into subjective version of a model of the outer world (as somebody's version of Phenomenal Reality).
       
      And that, I’m afraid, is all I can manage today (I’ve been away for three days and have a lot to catch up with), but I need some indications of where you stand on my comments on my perception that your Phenomenal Reality and your Noumenal Reality are both still within the phenomenal experiential framework and thus simply different levels of the Phenomenal before I can go on up those floors you’ve  thought through so well.
      looking forward to continuing this discussion ....... Verna
       
       
      Serge Patlavskiy
       



      Вірусів немає. www.avast.com
      Reply
      Delete

    • Show all 27 messages in this topic

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
    Reply to this message...
    jcs-online@{{emailDomain}}