A new form of Science

[yly2pg1]

http://www.wolframscience.com/

[martin]

I'm not very familiar with Wolfram's work but I know that he is by many perceived as a crank (for a definition of this term look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)))

What do you think Yly, is there anything worthwhile there or is his work mostly hot air?

[martin]

One (very http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif) critical reviewer writes about "A New Kind of Science":

"Let me try to sum up. On the one hand, we have a large number of true but commonplace ideas, especially about how simple rules can lead to complex outcomes, and about the virtues of toy models. On the other hand, we have a large mass of dubious speculations (many of them also unoriginal). We have, finally, a single new result of mathematical importance, which is not actually the author's. Everything is presented as the inspired fruit of a lonely genius, delivering startling insights in isolation from a blinkered and philistine scientific community. We have been this way before."

The complete article is here (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/)

[bruce]

here?s (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/18.4_jahn_dunne.PDF) another to peruse, that a friend forwarded to me:

Can?t say for sure, but it seems like these folks jump through an awful lot of hoops to arrive at what is and has been a given for thousands, possibly millions of years among even primitive tribes. Then there?s the academic language, which creates the illusion of something new and hard to understand, while it?s merely salad dressing.

Imo, this entire paper could be summed up in hexagram 60.

I suppose the up-side is that, at least they?re looking at what others see.

[lightofdarkness]

Bruce,

? 60 ? hmm... - I think 60 covers the setting of standards, the imposition of limitations to get around issues of over-diversity, over-labelling.

ICPLus page for 60:

----------------------
60 Limitation
Standardising, Reasoning
In a context of self-reflection we utilise control.

"CHIEH : seperate and distinguish, as well as join different things; express thought through speech; joint, section, chapter, interval, unit of time; regulations, limit; zodiacal sign; lit:nodes on bamboo shoots" ERANOS p630



Image :
"[With self-reflection comes overcoming(Control) : Standardizing] One uses analysis to create standards and the right words in following one's path."

Class: Integrating

Commentary :
Cooperative format : In hexagram 60, self imposed limits are useful for development. they enable one to set reachable goals and to stretch the limits as well as set up standards by which one can compare progress. This form of discipline helps avoid possible obstruction and oppression. These limits are set from within (56,60) not from without (38,39). In the image, just as measurement standards are a form of limitation but beneficial, so is determining a 'best course' as one develops one's path.

These standardization processes imply the concept of staying and reasoning things out; to seperate and distinguish.

-----------------
As such Wolfram is attempting to impose a new 'filter', a new 'paradigm' as a standard.

The trigrams read from bottom to top as "with self-reflection comes control" - self-reflection covers (a) the literal sense of a 'copy' or 'same image' and (b) the figurative sense of thinking things out (being reflective)

In Lake there is also the sense of 'self-promotion' that comes with Wolfram's perspective.

60 shares structural space with 61 where in the latter there is a focus on particular limiting (hard exterior, soft interior and so a yielding, a sense of empathy and so resonance present - IOW a sense of 'sameness' as is also covered in 60 through the focus on setting standards (i.e. common weights and measures etc)

We can get a more general identification looking at the infrastructure of 60 that is described by analogy to 59 and so a generic focus on issues of dispelling of illusions. 'lifting the fog' etc.

The infrastructure of 61 is described by analogy to 29 with a focus on issues of containment/control.

I think you may need to switch to (a) the fire based hexagrams where the focus is on some ideology (and so 36 comes to mind in the context of covering one's light as there are no 'likeminded' around - this would relate to the criticism the material has received) and (b) the water based hexagrams where the focus on issues of rejection and so containment/control issues where what is being presented is not current dogma etc.

The realm of fire-based hexagrams covers the psychic realm of organisers/planners/strategists etc and so general grouping of some perspective involving ideology and issues of acceptance (and so includes issues of water and rejection etc)

All of that said, Wolfram seems to interpret himself more working out of the realm of thunder (and the material is promoted as a 'new paradigm' and so would come out of thunder if so). The overall perspective is of a realm of problem solvers (thunder+fire) - his main contribution to things being the production and marketing of the "Mathematica" software.

Im my own reading of "A New Kind of Science" I got bored and so did not complete it. It sits on the shelf and maybe sometime I will re-read it or try and continue where I left off - but the overall reaction to it appears to be more along the fire-based hexagram dimension of 36-13 - IOW focused on issues of 'likeminded' individuals requiring its acceptance.

Since Fire falls into the problem-solvers realm, and that temperament is represented in the US by only 12% of the population, so 88% are NOT 'likeminded'!

We can get close with those personas described by fire-topped hexagrams in other octets. IOW someone of a hex 35 nature may 'get it' etc.

Chris.

[martin]

Interesting article, Bruce. Although the authors use academic language they are at least "looking at what others see", as you say.
They have probably seen a lot themselves but try do adapt to their for the most part blind academic readers. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

"In similar spirit, we also reject the popular presumption that all modes of human information processing are completely executed within the physiological brain, and that all experiential sensations are epiphenomena of the biophysical and biochemical states thereof.
Rather,we shall regard the brain as a neurologically localized utility that serves a much more extended ?mind,? or ?psyche? or ?consciousness? that far transcends the brain in its capacity, range, endurance, and subtlety of operation, and that is far more sophisticated than a mere antenna for information acquisition, or a silo for its storage."

Right, that begins to sounds a bit more like how things really are.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin, what I see in your comments and the prose of the article is a need for 'instant' gratification!

No one, until now through IDM, has grasped the full properties of recursion and the XOR dynamics. Those properties change the boundaries of what we imagine we have been dealing with re information processing so writting-off the brain etc as done by the article (and you for that matter) is extremely premature.

Such statements as:

"we shall regard the brain as a neurologically localized utility that serves a much more extended ?mind,? or ?psyche? or ?consciousness?"


show a perspective bordering on creationism/intelligent-design where there is no need at all for such a perspective. When the FULL methodology of brain dynamics is understood and that STILL does not cover things THEN we can start to consider alternatives - but the XOR material alone shows that up till now we have only been scratching the surface of neurological dynamics.

Chris.

[martin]

You explore one perspective, Chris, the writers of that article explore another.
They feel that they are on the right track, so do you.
If either of you sought instant gratification you both would eat icecream all day instead of going through all the trouble of trying to explain your views to others who generally refuse to listen.
I suppose ..

So what's your point? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lightofdarkness]

whats my point? you demonstrated it by your curt tone ;-)

I dont need the 'god hypothesis' or some close model to cover ICPlus, recursion, XOR etc etc The people who wrote the article are ignorant of such dynamics and so seek to find some solution to their problems in their life time - IOW seek instant gratification.

I do not expect the IDM material to be recognised for what it is 'instantly' since it has to deal with current dogma and that takes a while - past my life time, but there is enough value in IDM for it to continue past my life time and grow - 23/43 dynamic - prune/seed, prune/seed etc etc

Chris.

[yly2pg1]

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/mat/pce/pce.htm

[martin]

Well, I guess I was a bit curt ;), but I really don't see any instant gratification here.
If I remember correctly the authors of the article mention that they have already a few decades of research behind them.
And it is not to be expected that the problems related to their perspective will be solved in their lifetime.
What they offer is in fact a kind of research program and it may take centuries to carry it out. If - and that is another difficulty - other scientists are willing to do the research.

Certain subjects and ideas have become more or less taboo in science. Mostly for external historical reasons (the struggle with the catholic church and so on) and not because they are intrinsically "unscientific".
From a science viewpoint there is in principle nothing wrong with the idea that consciousness exists independent of brains. It can be refined and researched like any other. But it has rarely happened and the lack of development of such ideas then becomes an extra reason to ban them, because, crude as they are, they seem unscientific. Vicious circle.

So, it is not as easy as it may seem to you.
That is also true for more personal explorations of "other" perspectives. Merely believing something is one thing, verifying it with a critical (in fact scientific) mind is another.
It is far from easy.

[lightofdarkness]

How was it that I got bored with the book? because I was already aware of Wolfram's work with cellular automata and his 256 rules etc etc In fact there is a paper on my website written by a retired Prof., of Computer Science focusing on the dynamics of rule 129 (he and I spent some time together in Washington DC back in 2000 discussing IDM in this context) The page is:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/stegan.html

This was all prior to Wolfram's book coming out and I at least was 'dissapointed' by the work (as in 'bored' - nothing 'new' to me)

The IDM work brings to our attention properties of recursion not identified before. Even though elements of Wolfram's work focuses on recursion etc he has failed to come up with what I have done where I focus on what the neurology does and the qualities we use as a species to communicate (and so label for communication).

The COMPLEXITY involved in XOR dynamics is stunning but most important of all, it is easily demonstrated a la a focus on specialisations such as IC, emotions, MBTI, or even qualities of mathematics. NONE of this has been done in current academia (and Wolfram is trained in that environment and so limited by it).

An aspect of Wolfram's work is on POTENTIALS and that is shared with the IDM focus on recursion of dichotomies - IOW such a perspective as 'wave/particle duality' is guaranteed when experiments are created using recursion of dichotomies WITHOUT understanding what is going on (and so consequences in interpretations etc - see such pages as:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html )

This also gets into sensory systems where 'random noise' is allowed in to a 'meaning space' and in that process the Sierpinski gasket is created as a 'template' for informtion processing (where the binomial theorm is a refinement of the template pattern and so we see the IC encoded into the pattern in that the recursion of yin/yang reflects the properties of the binomial theorem of (A+B)^n.

See comments re IC and maths in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icmaths.html


Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

BTW the triangular shapes etc in the article link of Yly are 'Sierpinksi gaskets' expressed in 2D. REFINE these and out will pop such perspectives as Pascal's triangle etc showing a CORE focus on the BOUNDING of noise as done by sensory systems.

Note that recursion of a dichotomy has (a) a start, and (b) no end. BUT with each iteration comes a BOUNDED set of categories orthogonal to the direction of recursuion and we use these to communicate - we see the roots of language here and that includes the I Ching.

(For more on Wolfram et all see anything (google) on "Artificial Life")

Chris.

[bruce]

God hypothesis, no-god hypothesis? I like the ice cream hypothesis better.

[martin]

Health warning:
Eating ice cream is bad for your recursion!

[bruce]

ALL food groups fit at ANY given moment and so ALTERNATIVES to ice cream likewise pose DICHOTOMIES of good AND bad.

[void]

God has a 'chris hypothesis' apparently.

[martin]

Maybe we could ask god to make his chris a little bit more flexible then? A software update perhaps?

I see now that this version of the program chris (it's version 9.31d, I believe, a version that only runs on brains that are completely recursive) has recently also put a certain program mr. wolfram on the ever growing list of programs that don't "get" it.

I estimate that by now about 99.9999999 % of programmable humanity - past and present - is on that list.
Or to be more precise: every program except program chris.

And what is it that they don't get?

What they don't get is that if you study an airplane you should limit yourself to the wheels.
If you do that you will be able to fully explain why and how the thing flies. Promise!

What about the engines then and the wings?
No, no, no, don't look at them! Instant gratification! Beware!
You don't need to know anything about wings and engines to understand that plane!
Only the wheels! Nothing but the wheels!

Sad to say, but me thinks that chris version 9.31d has a serious bug.
May the god that it doesn't need save its soul in which it doesn't believe!
Amen!

[pakua]

but... what if he's right, in his fashion??? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[matt]

Quantum nonlocality

[lightofdarkness]

Martin (meow) - "I estimate that by now about 99.9999999 % of programmable humanity - past and present - is on that list."

You have over-estimated, trying to get that instant gratification again! ;-)

The number is 99% - the INTP persona represents 1% of the population. Thats why it takes time for the ideas ec to 'spread' since the paradigms that come out of the persona are innovative whereas most others just produce material that is adaptive - fit within the current context/dogma. IOW innovation can elicit resistance due to the amount of change involved - the re-configuring of belief systems etc can be severe for some and so these sorts of innovations are often more 'next generation' in focus.

The IDM/ICPlus material is innovative, pardigm-shifting. As such it retains aspects of the 'old' that are of value, are 'real', but replaces those aspects that were 'imaginative'. This is dialectical negation - we keep the 'good' bits. The other form of negation is analytical where we totally replace the past, 'born again' etc etc Nature, in the long run, favours the dialectical form.

Analytical negation is common in language development where, given the chance, each generation would create their own language. With education there are still 'creole' aspects of a generation's language but the education allows for dialectical negation.

As for Wolfram, there is no direct link in ANY of Wolfram's material to the everyday as shown in the IDM material. That is due to his failure to properly analyse the properties and methods of brain dynamics and sensory dynamics such as synesthesia etc.

For ICPlus the issues are in what it finds given the neurosciences compared to what the traditionalists believe they are dealing with.

The only 'spiritual' aspects come from us as a species as we mix the real with the imagined as consciousness attempts to interpret reality. PRIOR to being able to see 'inside' our imagination flowed 'freely' - as in child-mindedness. Time to grow up. (JC commented on needing the mind of a child to enter the kingdom of 'God' but then used-car salemen also like that mind-set - belief in magic, dont ask 'serious' questions requiring 'serious', empirical research supported, answers etc etc etc)

Chris.

[martin]

So these other programs don't get it because they are not INTP? Or because it is so new? Meow! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

I think there is more going on here. Such as the claim of a "paradigm shift" when IDM only follows the traditional scientific program of trying to reduce mind to physiology, chemistry, genes, neurology and so on.
Nothing wrong with that program as such, see how far you can get with it, but it has an incredible long grey beard, isn't it? What's new?

And what is new about the belief that mind IS indeed reducable to chemistry, neurology, and so on? And about behaving as if this is a fact instead of just a belief?
Go back to the year AD 1850 and you will find many scientists who had that same belief and tried to sell it as a fact.

Again, nothing wrong with that old science program as such, but I suggest that it is time to grow up (!) and stop confusing beliefs, convictions and working hypotheses with certainties.
What we have found so far are (sometimes strong) correlations between mind and physical factors. Fine, excellent, but correlation doesnt imply causation, as any undergraduate student in science knows or at least should know. The jump to "mind is nothing but .." is nowadays still as premature as it was in 1850.

And while we continue in the old way, why not also look at alternative ideas about mind and research them seriously?
It's not either or. We can do both.

[bruce]

Martin ? blasphemer! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif

[martin]

Just debugging the prophet a bit, Bruce http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[void]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Again nothing wrong with that old science programme as such, but I suggest that it is time to grow up (!) and stop confusing beliefs, convictions and working hypotheses as if they were
certainties<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif Great stuff Martin and it so needed saying.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin, I think you are confusing ontology with epistemology. This confusion is understandable given that the IDM material covers the point of transition from the methodology in deriving meaning (epistemological) to the assertion of meaning (ontological - the realm of 'is-ness')

What IDM identifies is the source of all ontologies in the form of a template of qualities used to communicate meaning where those qualities are artifacts of the methodology (and so the realm of the epistemological) in processing sensory information. IOW we focus on the beginnings of language as qualities rather than words representing qualities (IOW our sense of wholes, parts, statics, dynamics are sourced at the neurological and seed the categorical/conceptual and up to the levels of metaphor creation and analogy making. This feed is unconscious such that our consciousness deals with expressions etc and is unaware of the seeding that allows us to say things without conscious awareness of exactly what is going to be said unless we repress the spontinaity - whereupon our speech becomes 'laboured')

Given the IDM template material and the identification of properties of self-referencing not covered before in the current dogma, so all past specialist perspectives are under review.

For example, given the XOR material coming out of recursion, so it applies to, for example, RNA/DNA dynamics in that the codons come out of the recursion of purines/pyramidines (this being the reason why we can map the IC to DNA codons etc - the method is the constant and this has not been identified before outside of my work.) This application changes our understanding of information processing in general and as such introduces a new paradigm re understanding/interpreting reality.

All of the past "IC &amp; DNA" texts try to interpret the relationships as something 'magical' etc where there is no magic at all, just confusion about different expressions of a methodology; no one has looked BEHIND the expressions and into the methodology of expression regardless of context.

ANY specialisations derived from self-referencing can be of the real or the imagined or some hybrid form but they are all metaphors for what the neurology deals with - patterns of differentiating/integrating (specialised in neurosciences to the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy)

It is this common ground that allows to make maps that resonate with 'meaning' even if imagined since the methodology of the imagined 'reflects' the methodology of the real.

Thus when you focus on 'alternative' ideas etc you are in fact focusing on alternative EXPRESSIONS of the ONE METHODOLOGY. (as I have said before, using the IC as a reference, each hexagram serves as a descriptor of reality such that all hexagrams represent the whole of reality. Our consciousness has a real problem in dealing with this whole 'immediately' - we have to use piecemeal methods (scientific investigastions) to get the 'idea' - and so map out the regular network that seeds all of our small world networks. Thus you 'alternative ideas' are all covered in the IDM material but not expressed in the terms of those alternatives - I dont write prose from the position of an identity-seeker, their EXPRESSIONS are not the same as those of a problem-solver but what those expressions represent ARE the same.

As IDM shows, it can map IC to Astrology to categories of emotions to categories of personalities to categories of the types of numbers we use in mathematics. IOW we span astrological ideas, I ching ideas, persona ideas, emotion ideas, mathematical ideas. We cannot escape any of this since the IDM template identifies the core source of analogies/metaphors used across the species.

Every sentence you write, in any language, is made-up of qualities derived from the self-referencing of the noun/verb dichotomy (and the symbolisms in Mathematics have the same root in that noun/verb is a specialist dichotomy representing differentiating/integrating)

IOW all ideas will be expressed in the same general manner of describing object/relationships dynamics. You cannot escape this; all you can do is re-label patterns of the dynamics to create some specialist language to describe some specialist context.

In the dealings with so-called paradox we see our consciousness create the paradox through not understanding the XOR/AND dynamics that our brains use in processing information (and so we include the specialist dichotomy in information processing of bandwidth/time issues)

We can experience this dynamic - see the images in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

Due to the 'hard coding' of differentiating/integrating, anything outside of that hard-coding will be interpreted from WITHIN that hard-coding. This will elicit uncertainty in identification, our brains will 'oscillate' across the set of possible hard-coded meanings, unable to settle on one (and this oscillation can span milliseconds or millenia) - the oscillation reflects the brain's working with the bandwidth/time dichotomy, relabelled as NOW/PAST-FUTURE dichotomy where what cannot be identified NOW is surrended to PAST-FUTURE to try and resolve the problem. This dynamic makes us driven to 'argue' as we try and resolve A/NOT-A issues when dealing with reality (and that includes the subjective reality of others)

Given understanding of the XOR/AND dynamic, and so again the differentiating/integrating dichotomy, so such specialisation as quantum mechanics etc are no longer 'strange' or 'paradoxical'. One just needs to understand the epistemology of our meaning-derivation and compensate for the asymmetry present.

The IDM material brings out in the IC relationships not covered before (or if so only vaguely, as intuitions of 'something more' etc) and in doing so changes the perspective of the IC, takes it way beyond its traditional position and in so doing validates it as something useful for the species, not just for those interested in 'esoterica'.


Chris.

[jte]

Um, Chris -

"The only 'spiritual' aspects come from us as a species as we mix the real with the imagined as consciousness attempts to interpret reality. "

Kind of close-minded to assume/assert that all spirituality comes from this one source, no? That there is no *possibility* of it being something else? Didn't you write in a post recently that (in your opinion) science left open the door to there being more to religion/spirituality than this?

- Jeff

[lightofdarkness]

Jeff - consider this from my previous post:

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Due to the 'hard coding' of differentiating/integrating, anything outside of that hard-coding will be interpreted from WITHIN that hard-coding. This will elicit uncertainty in identification, our brains will 'oscillate' across the set of possible hard-coded meanings, unable to settle on one (and this oscillation can span milliseconds or millenia) - the oscillation reflects the brain's working with the bandwidth/time dichotomy, relabelled as NOW/PAST-FUTURE dichotomy where what cannot be identified NOW is surrended to PAST-FUTURE to try and resolve the problem. This dynamic makes us driven to 'argue' as we try and resolve A/NOT-A issues when dealing with reality (and that includes the subjective reality of others)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Then consider this (where anthropomorphism is a methodology we use to interpet the unknown):

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

also read the text of the paradox page link I provided earlier.

Then go through such texts as Tippler's "The Physics of Immortality" which works off there being no 'god' etc in the past but the development of consciousness can make one!

In addition focus on issues of 'purity' and resonance that allow for interpretations of the 'spiritual' given the data from such studies as those on identical twins seperated at birth - gets into one 'thing' being in two places at the one time ( and so gets around the Pauli Exclusion Principle of not allowing two in the one quantum state)

THESE areas get into 'spirituality' etc but not as something 'out there', more so something derived from us - in that derivation is 'wave mechanics' activities (resonance etc) all of which still falls within the bounds of Science (and so such notions as a 'collective unconscious' are possible but we need more work - but this is still all 'us' - IOW there is no NEED for considering an external source at this time ;-))

Chris.

[matt]

Chris, you say there is no need to consider an external source at this time, but when I consider the true 'universals' of life or indeed the IC, then isnt it best to consider both the internal and external? Because are they not the same thing in essence?
And the 'collective unconscious' no longer applies only to human consciousness, it applies to all matter in the universe, hence my mentioning quantum nonlocality earlier on.

I'm a little puzzled you havent extended your ICPlus to encompass quantum nonloaclity. Because if you think about it, your XOR method is very much like 'entanglement' in quantum physics. And then by making this correlation, it goes further to say that reality is NOT based on human consciousness, but rather human consciousness is just a part of a bigger whole.

[jte]

Hmmm. Chris, much as I appreciate you trying to meet me halfway here I'm somewhat at a loss. I hardly understand what you are trying to say in the excerpt. Even if I did I doubt I would have the background info to be able form a well-reasoned opinion about whether I agree or not.

I didn't have much luck with the other link, either, nor with the paradox paper, although I understood your discussion of the brain attempting to make sense of a more complex reality than it is built to interpret in the discussion of visual paradoxes.

I don't really have sufficient free time on my hands to read the Tippler book either, I'm sorry to say.

I do understand your summary paragraph at the end of your post. So, yes, when you explain a bit more about your views, it appears you are somewhat more open minded than your earlier post seemed to indicate.

I suppose if there were irrefutable, replicable evidence of an external God you'd accept that too, correct?

- Jeff

[lightofdarkness]

Matt, you obviously have not been reading the links I supply re IDM where they include extensive coverage of quantum mechanics as an example of a specialisation that has developed its own language without due consideration of the methodology used in our derivation of meaning.

Saying things like "Because if you think about it, your XOR method is very much like 'entanglement' in quantum physics" shows you are missing the point in that the XOR material is part of OUR being and will appear in ALL specialisations and that includes QM where QM is a METAPHOR for describing differentiating/integrating in the particular context of Physics (itself a metaphor)

QM comes out of the realm of EXPRESSION. The XOR material comes out of what is BEHIND the expression. The confusion of our consciousness, the agent of mediation and so of dealing with representations/expressions, with our instincts/habits has led to a lot of misunderstanding about what is going on 'in here' - see the species page link below as well as the page covering the dynamics 'beneath' our sense of wholes etc (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html - and the associated refs/links)

You also say "I'm a little puzzled you havent extended your ICPlus to encompass quantum nonloaclity" what a ridiculous statement, again showing you have not bothered to read ICPlus pages that in the past you have claimed to read! - see in particular:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus/WaveStructure.html

For IDM and QM see the essays off the IDM home page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb

and in particular:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/svector.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/bits.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/vision.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/light.html

and the others.

You and others are so over-sensitive to expressions, to DIFFERENCES, that you are missing the ORGANIC, the WHOLE, from which we all operate and behind those LOCAL differences is SAMENESS. THAT sameness is what makes us a species and so able to understand, to find meaning in, all of the different expressions we deal with.

Also note that the research data re consciousness favours the IDM approach of consciousness being emergent, coming out of increased neural activity as an agent of mediation. IOW there is no need for models of consciousness as being orginating.

The neuron reflects the adaptation to the environment in the form of manipulation of patterns of differentiating/integrating since those patterns are 'out there' and evolution will favour life forms that copy those patterns.

The increased complexity in the neurology allows for dynamics that elicit 'emergence' to varying degrees - thus awareness in 'lower' life forms spans minutes/hours whereas our complexity allows for 24/7 activity. With that 24/7 activity comes the ability to store data off-line, to teach complex subjects without starting afresh each generation etc etc. As such we are a mutation and being on have taken over the planet and in so doing, in our child-like manner, are in the processing laying that planet to waste. BUT through the self-referencing that comes with consciousness we are in a position to do something about the situation and within the life time of the species.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

oh -- I forgot my older material re QM etc going back to 1990s on my original website. See essays listed in:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/qm2.html

I am VERY familar with QM concepts and show how such concepts have emerged from a lack of understanding re consciousness/speciesness, differentiating/integrating, whole/part dynamics.

IOW such a notion as QM 'nonlocality' is EASY to understand/accept once you 'get' what is going on re our representations of reality stemming from a lack of understanding re the methodology in deriving the meaning associated with those representiations.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

and more - see these older essays in current website:


http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newwave.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/quantum.html (contains some old links to prodigy site - just relabel with http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/<pagename.html>)

Since all of this relates to IDM and differentiating/integrating so it applies to the IC. (and so the reason how we can 'see' QM in the IC as we can IC in QM)

Chris.

[matt]

Chris, the quantum mechanics material you have written about is based on particle/wave dualities - Quantum nonlocality does not deal in any such duality. The wave and particle forms are the expressions - the nonlocality is the bed which the expression is planted upon. I wasnt talking about wave and particles, I was talking about the communicative process between all atoms, the awarenesss that exists between them creating a giant web of a conscious universe - so therefore it is NOT just about human consciousness, but universal consciousness.

When I read you talking so emphatically about the 'recursion of dictomies', it always reminds me of one thing - extreme darwinism - evolution is dependent upon patterns. Chris, life is not a computer simulation, this is not the matrix. I know you worked as a programmer, but you are not Neo. You say my comment about entanglement and nonlocality is ridiculous - what is so ridiculous about it? Its one of the areas of scinece I apply to my own I ching work. I was actually trying to offer constructive helpful comments, but as always you respond in your usual confrontational manner - defensive of your own back yard, and offensive to anyone daring to comment on the lawn you are keeping.

I love science and math, I spend much of my free time absorbing myslef in it, but do you know what most bothers me about many of the scientific community? Its the bone-faced arrogance and plain rudeness. Many scientists have lost all objectivity, and instead emply a stubborn no-listen approach to interesting new theory. They refuse to study it, and then they call anything that is not science (i/e religion) a dogma. This isnt objective, its subjective.

You are absolutely obssessed with labelling others as either 'traditonalists' or 'expressionists', and then you make the claim that you are in the elite 1% of higher intelligent beings. Im sorry, but I find that quite an incredible claim by someone who hasnt even learnt how to write properly yet so others may understand. Im sorry, but this made me quite angry, I HAVE invested my personal time into looking at your web pages on many occasions - not because I agree with you (I dont), but because I would like to understand your perspective (your expression) better. But when was the last time you actually agreed with someone? Have you ever agreed with anyone? When was the last time you actually asked a question? Any question to anyone here. Einstein was 'kind of clever' and he advocated 'never stop questioning'. Your appraoch only serves to seprate you from this SPECIES you are so keen on anaylsing.

No matter how many times someone will say they dont understand your work, you make no new attempts to clarify it for the layman. No matter how many times someone claims to undersstand your work, you always claim they dont 'get it'. So what the hell is the point of your existance then Chris? If people dont understand, you refuse to give them clarity, and if someone DOES understand you tell them they dont! You are living a complete paradox. On the one hand you are yearning for people to take on board your new 'paradigm-shift', and on the other hand if they do take it on board they are constantly reminded how little they know by you. Are you not self aware? Do you not realise your actions upon the world?

Geez man, how about you actually try to cooperate with people for a change. You are in your 50s now and all of my friends in their 20s have a more evolved state of self than you show on this forum.

[lightofdarkness]

Matt,

The realm of the local/non-local is a specialist dichotomy reflecting the characteristics of differentiating/integrating. There is no 'quantum' perspective here - this is basic artifacts of neurological processes. IOW there is no 'quantum non-locality' in that the non-locality is universal as in a realm of an integrated (as compared to a differentiated) whole - IOW there is no need for a qualifer such as 'quantum' etc since the non-local aka integrated aka equilibrium position etc is across the board and recognised as such due to the mutation of our differentiating consciousness.

It is only with the design of experiments out of the realm of the local that the physicists ran into the non-local due to their not having any idea about how 'in here' works nor the position of consciousness as an agent of mediation and so being a PART, not a WHOLE.

IOW much of QM is riddled with descriptions that are based on delusions (and so continued maintaining of that language is also delusional even if it is useful. One also has to be wary of specialisations in that they can split into 'pure' and 'applied' forms where the former can get over-loaded with the imagined)

If you bothered to read the IC material CAREFULLY you would realise that the particle/wave dichotomy is an asymmetric dichotomy and is synonomous with the local/non-local dichotomy where it too is an asymmetric dichotomy.

If you bothered to read the IDM material carefully you would realise that the consciousness/speciesness dichotomy is also an asymmetric dichotomy and so syonymous with local/non-local.

If you bothered to read the IDM material carefully you would realise that we can slot the dichotomies into a column where each dichotomy is a specialist expression of the core, general, dichotomy of differentiate/integrate.

If you bothered to read the IDM/ICPlus material carefully you would realise that all asymmetric dichotomies have one element emerging from, exaggerated from, the other element - e.g. local/non-local and so particular/general.

IOW ANY attempt to map reality using dichotomisations will elicit the patterns we have regardless of they being real or imagined. THEN comes the test of fitting the patterns to the context and trying to predict from them. BUT we are predicting from representations and in doing so can forget that fact and confuse map with territory.

The speed of your response indicates to me that you have not read nore thought about the links I have supplied.

The tone of your response indicates some sort of frustration where you are trying to communicate something as if 'new' to me - it isnt. YOU are confused and the discussion has destablised you and so you get 'angry'. Snap out of it. Take a deep breath, hold it, let it out slowly. Focus. THINK.

BTW I find it interesting that all you can do here is 'rave' and so you have not read the material I supplied as a links - and that includes not addressing the particular link re QM and IC interpretations - a link you suggested I did not have! whats the matter dude? afraid it might cause you to re-assess your model of reality? New paradigms can do that.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Juat to get the point across, since you seem to have issues with following links, our species-nature is a nature driven by instincts/habits. It is an ORGANIC nature in that those instincts show the integration of species with context and so a focus on BALANCE, EQUILIBRIUM, INTEGRATED, and so NON-LOCAL.

The development of life forms shows us a focus on developing MEDIATION skills to enhance survival and that favours the ability to DIFFERENTIATE (XOR processing) - this is a MECHANISTIC position.

The mechanistic position is FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM, DIFFERENTIATING, UNBALANCED, LOCAL.

The dynamics of the DEGREE of differentiating from integrating, together with the feedback loops involved, show us a dynamic of increasing mechanisation, increasing precision but also, due to the differentiating, increase in complexity/chaos dynamics. NATURAL PROPERTIES of exaggerating from the organic, integrated, non-local, position.

EACH point on the dimension of exaggeration can itself be a point of development and so we move into the realm of autopoietic networks.

IOW from the position of the mechanistic, differentiating, can develop a perspective of reality (call it 'pure yangness') that is self-referencing and so believes ITS perspective is THE perspective. As IDM shows, this is not the case (see for example the page on the dimension of precision - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm006.html )

Our consciousness spans the whole dimension outside of the non-local since that realm is immediate and so lacks differentiation - a prime requirement of identity establishment. This spanning means that we can come up with many models of reality but all missing the one link to our species-nature (the integrating nature that is instincts driven and so non-local)

IDM shows all of the POSSIBLES given the methodology in deriving the differentiating arm of our species-nature. The IC, as a metaphor for the template IDM identifies, thus MUST also show those possibles but it does it in a *traditional*, small world, local network. We can now map out the regular network from which that local has developed.

READ THE LINKS.

With me so far, or did you get lost a while back?

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Jut to finish things off - the BINARY sequence of the I Ching maps out the ACTUALISATION of the structural POTENTIALS in the non-local where recurse the differentiate/integrate aka local/non-local dichotomy to give the ordering in the IC (at the trigram level) of:

111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

EACH of these can develop orthogonal to the horizontal and so do in their representations of vertical line development from general to particular. YOUR perspectives often fail to to recognise this thermodynamic development process since you and others appear to be still 'stuck' with the traditionalist sequence and the 'only' valid sequence. It isnt. It is a small world, a specialisation of the general.

Chris.

[matt]

Chris, it sounds like you have no idea what I am talking about. Nonlocality is not a 'theory', its an observed fact. How do you think they have managed to build quantum computers? 'Quantum' is not just some loose term thrown around by theorists with extravagent ideas, its the actual study of the small universe. Yes, there are many existing and non -proven theories, but nonlocality is not one of them.

How can you dismiss the universal interactions of energy, and instead focus only on the human consciousness as a differentiating principle. This just shows you are completely out of tune with how energy truly works. Your approach is VERY limited.

Nonlocality describes the communication of atoms over vast distances WITHOUT wave interactions, therefore the local is transformed instantaneously into the universal - THEY ARE THE SAME THING. You really are on the wrong track. I suggest you read more about it, because just like you claimed you know a lot about QP, as do I, Ive been studying it for years. I may be just a 'young grasshopper' (Ithink you called me that in a thread once) in your eyes, but maybe I have a few things you could learn from. Or maybe that asking too much?

And please dont comment on my 'tone' and emotional state until you can see me face to face. I do get passionate about some things in life, although it is a passion I like in myself. And the whole point of my visits to your site have been for the purpose of possible 're-assessment of my model of reality' - I am always open-mided to new ideas, and I constantly question my own beliefs, so this is not a fear inside of me, its a natural desire to learn and grow http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif You excuse me of being over-emotional, yet your response was no better, sarcastic at best... and reminds me of the type of comments I use to hear in the first year of school. Sorry, how old are you again?

Oh and your 'theory' is not a 'paradigm shift', I have finally concluded it would be better described as a 'paralysing sh!t'.

[lightofdarkness]

All I read in your post Matt is 'smoke' - you have not addressed any of the empirically-derived material in the supplied links etc. You obviously still miss the differences of expression vs what is represented. You are obviously confused re ontological vs epistemological and so take the figurative literally.

To focus on the IC, and in particular ICPlus, the XOR material is valid. You nore anyone else has come up with it due to YOUR limitations in thinking/analyse. You have been, and many continue to be, imprisoned by dogma; lost at the level of expressions, like in Plato's cave you are looking at shadows and using imagination to interpret.

With current technology we can see the source of those shadows and that source is us. That is obviously too much of an issue for you to deal with - you have to stick with the figurative and translate it literally to survive. Sad but true.

Chris.

[matt]

I find it quite incredible that you claim to be so intelligent, yet you struggle to see the point I am making. The reason I have not addressed the material you have posted is because it is NOT relevent when you consider quantum nonlocality. It becomes increasingly clear that you have not studied this area, otherwise you would have encompassed it in your work.

It may come as a surprise to you, but YOUR work is just another 'shadow', another 'expression'. The only links you have posted about QM are on wave dynamics - thats basic! Wave/particle duality is a 'local' expression. THey are bound by limitations, such as the speed of light, and surrounding physical forces such as the nuclear and electro-magnetic. THere is MORE than this. But you dont want to see this do you? Why? Because as soon as you realise that there are people in the world with more knowledge in some areas of life than you possess, this creates shivers of insecurity travel down your spine. SO you use stubborness as your ally, and construct unreadable and unaccessable language as your 'smokescreen'. When I was 15 years old, my English teacher advised me to simplify my language, because I was trying to make things sound 'cleverer than they actually were'. I was a little stunned at the time, but she was right. All I was doing was using complexity of language to twist simple truths into extravagent extortions of reality. Why? Because I felt it made up for my lack of knowledge. THere is no need for you to speak and write the way you do, your ideas are simple, so express them for what they are.

Now, I know you will ignore my next paragraph (though hopefully since Ive directed your attention upon your possible future ignorance, you might actually acknowledge it) But lets consider your recursion of dictomies. Why do you stop at the neuron? Why is human consciousness the limit for you? Why are your so avidly following darwins natural selection and evolutionary spiral, but then STOP recursing beyond human consciouness? Why do you dismiss the 'external' source of energy, when you should know that there is NO differentiation, only the limits you are placing upon your own work.

If you were going to truly follow the footsteps of recursion back into time, then you could go ALL the way back to the big bang - when all atoms were connected and condensed as one, so why do you isolate human consciousness as the governing principle of evolution? Its actually 'thinking 'like yours' that has kept humanities blinders on for so many centuries. But you its pointless trying to show someone who is wearing blinders (like you), a world without blinders.

AS soon as you begin to study nonloaclity nd entanglement, your whole system starts to fall apart. In fact, its not so much a 'falling apart', it is more like shining a light on what your system represents - and thats ANOTHER LOCAL EXPRESSION. The wave dynamics you have sent me so many links on are only applicable in local situations. You would have to completely reconsider your theory if you were faced with no limitations - and thats exactly what nonlocaility would mean for you. Suddenly time and space no longer exist in a 'structured' way. What would be the '27-ness' of that Chris?

Your XOE material is EXACTLY like entanglement in many respects, its not YOUR idea, its an idea that was born long before you, you have just given it yet another form/label. I actually think its a great form/label you have chosen - but dont be too arrogant in your assumption that this is your new paradigm shift, many others were aware of this type of idea long before you.
The ONLY real difference between your XOR and entanglment, is that you limit XOR to local situations because your focus is on the interation of wave dynamics. But in the REAL world, its not quite as simple as this, wave dynamics are null and void when atoms influence each other over vast distances.

The neuron is just another medium that EXPRESSES a deeper energy at work.

[lightofdarkness]

> Posted by Matt (Matt) on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:18 pm:
>
> I find it quite incredible that you claim to be so intelligent, yet
> you struggle to see the point I am making. The reason I have not
> addressed the material you have posted is because it is NOT relevent
> when you consider quantum nonlocality. It becomes increasingly clear
> that you have not studied this area, otherwise you would have
> encompassed it in your work.
>

You are obviously not reading the IDM material. "quantum nonlocality" is a metaphor derived in a specialist context to try and describe "something". IDM is about the range of POSSIBLE categories we will use in our communications where those universals are then grounded in local context and relabelled to allow for the differentiation of that local context from all others.

The feelings associated with the label "quantum nonlocality" are expressed in ALL other specialisations using different labels. The feelings are sourced in the universal categories from the general notion of contractive blending. Contractive blending is expressed in the IC as pure 'yin' - representable in general through such forms as 000000. This form reflects the integrated whole containing no differentiations, and so no actualisations, but does contain POTENTIALS.


> It may come as a surprise to you, but YOUR work is just another
> 'shadow', another 'expression'.

Note quiet. The IDM categories are derived from analysis of the mindless dynamics of brain oscillations across the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy where that dichotomy is manifest in the lateralisation of the brain. The "WHAT/WHERE" terms come from neurosciences and so are themselves specialist. They reflect the qualities of the more basic, more universal dichotomy of differentiating(what)/integrating(where).

IDM has come up with a template of categories that serve as the foundations for language and so all specialist languages and so all ontologies (assertions of is-ness). The IDM template sits on the border of ontological perspectives and epistemological perspectives where the categories emerge from the neurology and are vague - as I have mentioned before we are dealing with a "Language of the Vague".

YOU on the other hand appear to be stuck in the realm of specialisations and are trying to argue from that position. You have some way to go grasshopper.


> The only links you have posted about
> QM are on wave dynamics - thats basic! Wave/particle duality is a
> 'local' expression.

... behind which are the categories in the form of felt qualities that 'feed' the expression. The errors by consiousness in its interpretation of reality are sourced in the failure to comprehend how we, and other neuron-dependent life forms, derive meaning - which is what IDM is about, the derivation of meaning and its use in communications through the 'free' labelling of determined qualities. With the labels we communicate through resonance.

The DESIGN of QM experiments come out of our brains and as such have their structure determined by what we can deal with. The 'paradoxical' elements in QM come out of those designs not taking into consideration the makeup of us as a conscious species where we will always experience different degrees of precision due to the partial nature of consciousness operating WITHIN the whole that is our speciesnes.

> THey are bound by limitations, such as the speed
> of light, and surrounding physical forces such as the nuclear and
> electro-magnetic. THere is MORE than this. But you dont want to see
> this do you? Why?

It has nothing to do with what IDM is about. You are still focused on specialist perspectives, specialist languages. The realm of the ontological described by metaphor. The ideas in specialist perspectives are 'seeded' by the properties and methods of our physiology - IOW you cannot go outside those properties and methods since there are no facilities to interpret anything other than our senses. Even our imagination, expressed in such areas as Science Fiction, will elicit fantasies WITHIN the bounds of our senses otherwise we could not understand them.

Our Science can EXTEND our senses but nor derive any forms of interpretation OUTSIDE of what we can comprehend and that comprehension is guided by the methodology we use to derive the categories we use and that is recursion of asymmetric and symmetric dichotomies where from the former comes spectrums and power laws and from the latter comes the normal distribution curve.

As covered in the paradox page (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html ) we will try and interpret reality from WITHIN the bounds set by our neurology and in doing so, if not fully aware of what is going on in our categorisations, can create paradox where, from the species-nature position, there is none.

IDM is not interested in the REALITY of QM in that IDM covers all meaning, be it imagined or real. IOW QM is just another specialisation, as is Relativity or Particle Physics or Classical Physics or Physics in general. Move to other specialisations an Astrology, IC, Mathematics, Chemistry, Theology etc etc etc all reflect the SAME core qualities identified in IDM as the seeds of their specialist languages. The hierarchy present allows for sub-languages to come out of the sub-specialisations where the more we differentiate so the more layers we introduce in our precision - hierarchy develops and our sense of meaning shifts from the semantic to the syntactic - all that matters is one's relationship to others in the hierarchy - pecking order dominates in that to be really precise everything must be in the 'correct' positions.

IN our collectives this dynamic of syntax/semantics (another specialist dichotomy reflecting the characteristics of the general dichotomy of differentiate/integrate), when applied to itself, will elicit a range of social structures from the 'soft', perculating, 'yin' forms to the 'hard', rigidly hierarchic, controlling, 'yang' forms. For references to this sort of conduct see such work that covers the control/flux dichotomy (a specialist dichotomy of differentiating/integrating) as:

(
Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House
Bradley, R.T., &amp; Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81
)

My page on the dance of the neurons covers this:

"(5)The transcend/transform emphasis is expressed at the level of collectives where the differences in energy management (transcend - expend, transform - conserve) are reflected in the differences between what sociologist Ray Bradley and neuroscientist Karl Pribram call 'control' collectives (high energy, charismatic, emphasis) and 'flux' collectives (energy conserving) - where the more 'functional' collectives reflect the entanglement of these distinctions."


> Because as soon as you realise that there are people
> in the world with more knowledge in some areas of life than you
> possess, this creates shivers of insecurity travel down your spine.

Not at all. Why not? Because the IDM material identifies the bounds of all meaning such that all 'knowledge' is based on relabelling the qualities identified by IDM that 'seed' our labels and so our differentiations. All we can ever know we already know at the level of the GENERAL. IDM identifies the roots of Mathematics in the form of the types of numbers we use to represent reality where Mathematics is another specialisation. IOW all that Mathematics described is knowable to all members of the species; most just don?t understand the specialisation (which is often taught in a very misleading, occult, fashion that elicits 'maths phobia' etc but then most mathematicians learn by rote - they do not question 'where does this come from' - something some cognitive scientists have tried to do but IMHO still don?t 'get it' - see my comments in the intro of:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/NeuroMaths3.htm )

ALL specialisations are metaphors, sources of analogy etc, for what the brain deals with - patterns of differentiating/integrating. Learn the patterns and understanding specialisations is lot easier in that one learns the foundations of them all, the SAMENESS, out of which comes the specialist DIFFERENCES in the form of labels.

> SO
> you use stubborness as your ally, and construct unreadable and
> unaccessable language as your 'smokescreen'. When I was 15 years old,
> my English teacher advised me to simplify my language, because I was
> trying to make things sound 'cleverer than they actually were'. I was
> a little stunned at the time, but she was right. All I was doing was
> using complexity of language to twist simple truths into extravagent
> extortions of reality. Why? Because I felt it made up for my lack of
> knowledge. THere is no need for you to speak and write the way you do,
> your ideas are simple, so express them for what they are.
>

I am happy with what I do. If you cant deal with the 'complexity' that is not my problem. As I have said before, I don?t 'teach' kindergarten. You need to 'lift' ;-) If you cant/wont do that - your loss.

> Now, I know you will ignore my next paragraph (though hopefully since
> Ive directed your attention upon your possible future ignorance, you
> might actually acknowledge it) But lets consider your recursion of
> dictomies. Why do you stop at the neuron? Why is human consciousness
> the limit for you? Why are your so avidly following darwins natural
> selection and evolutionary spiral, but then STOP recursing beyond
> human consciouness? Why do you dismiss the 'external' source of
> energy, when you should know that there is NO differentiation, only
> the limits you are placing upon your own work.
>

IDM is about the source of meaning. What you seek here is some ontology about the universe, some assertion of 'is-ness' - what IDM covers is the range of POSSIBLE 'is-nesses' given the manner in which neuron-dependent life forms operate.

Differentiation is a fundamental property of our neurology and especially of our consciousness. As covered in the properties of asymmetric dichotomies it emerges from the realm of the integrated but the feedback loops involved in the self-referencing of that dichotomy allow for the development of autopoietic networks.

IOW we are creating a hybrid reality where we mix our ideals with the materialism of the universe. IOW your realm of 'all is integrated' denies consciousness since to have consciousness, to BE aware means to be capable of differentiating such a state. Do you have some form of 'death wish'? Do you feel a need to 'disappear' into the universe? That?s very 'yin' and has its roots in fear that can develop into devotion to another/others. Our consciousness transcends that. It has its ROOTS in that but transcends it.

> If you were going to truly follow the footsteps of recursion back into
> time, then you could go ALL the way back to the big bang - when all
> atoms were connected and condensed as one, so why do you isolate human
> consciousness as the governing principle of evolution?

I don?t. I focus on the roots of meaning for neuron-dependent life forms (and so for all vertebrates for that matter). You obviously have not read the links I supplied for if you had you would have read this one:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html

In that link we trace the roots of consciousness to the beginnings of the universe in that the development of the neuron reflects the adaptation to the environment through internalisation of basic properties - IOW the recognition of and processing of patterns of differentiating/integrating.

The ASYMMETRIC nature of the adaptation (axon(PULSE)/dendrites(WAVE)) FORCES the development along complexity/chaos dynamics that allow for emergence of behaviours given a supporting context.

The DETERMINISTIC properties in development show a focus on GROUP development over that of the individual where a group goal is X but individuals in that group can pre-maturely die, be distracted, or be too slow in reaching the goal. This determinism is shown in the development of small world networks - see the section on history etc in the .pdf file http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf


> Its actually
> 'thinking 'like yours' that has kept humanities blinders on for so
> many centuries. But you its pointless trying to show someone who is
> wearing blinders (like you), a world without blinders.
>

I think you may be confused about who has the blinkers on.

> AS soon as you begin to study nonloaclity nd entanglement,

Done that. You obviously have not gone through all of the links I supplied.

> your whole
> system starts to fall apart. In fact, its not so much a 'falling
> apart', it is more like shining a light on what your system represents
> - and thats ANOTHER LOCAL EXPRESSION. The wave dynamics you have sent
> me so many links on are only applicable in local situations. You would
> have to completely reconsider your theory if you were faced with no
> limitations - and thats exactly what nonlocaility would mean for you.
> Suddenly time and space no longer exist in a 'structured' way. What
> would be the '27-ness' of that Chris?
>

27. the realm of potentials is represented by 000000; no observable structure; no actuals, only potentials, XOR 000000 with 100001 gives 100001 showing that the realm of potentials 'contains' the actual. You are way out of your depth here Matt. You have a long way to go to transcend your specialist frame of mind. IDM is GENERAL, it talks of feelings of blending, bonding, bounding, binding. As such it is not LOCAL enough to compete with other ontologies since it has nothing to do with that level of expression, it covers the ONE level determined by the neurology and its methodology and so the level of universals - a regular network. Out of that exposure to local context comes the small world networks, YOUR realm of expression.

The IDM material as such is not 'just another expression' since it is not at that level, it is at the level where ALL expressions derive their basic qualities that are then relabelled to assert difference out of sameness. In the context of the I Ching we focus on such vagaries as "contractive blending" which covers wholeness through drawing something 'in' - move to YOUR level of expression and we see the fragmentation that comes with differentiations where we have pure yin as darkness vs the pure yang of light or we have the female as compared to the male. Make further differentiations and we move to the individual's expression of what that core feeling means to them - and each person on the planet can give you their unique perspective, BUT it will be seeded by the core, generic, quality of "contractive blending".

> Your XOE material is EXACTLY like entanglement in many respects, its
> not YOUR idea, its an idea that was born long before you, you have
> just given it yet another form/label. I actually think its a great
> form/label you have chosen - but dont be too arrogant in your
> assumption that this is your new paradigm shift, many others were
> aware of this type of idea long before you.

Where? You wont find it. I have looked. NO-ONE had come up with the discovery (not the idea, the discovery) since no-one has asked the right questions. I asked the right questions based on understanding the dynamics of asymmetric dichotomies and paradox processing in the brain. Only in recent work have they come close to understanding what is going on (see refs and quotes in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html )

IF you read through all of the QM links I gave you you will find I keep stating that the experimental design is self-referencing and so recursive and that the so-called 'wave interference' patterns are a property of the METHOD and not necessarily of reality. If one does not understand that then one will interpret things literally ("there must be waves since I see waves" rather than consider the METHODOLOGY that will create waves - such that LOCAL context determines if you 'see' waves or particles. As covered in my page on paradox, if you do NOT make proper categories, and so accommodate the methodology of categorisation, you are guaranteed to create 'paradox').

This sort of misunderstanding, this confusion of properties of methodology with properties of reality, gets reinforced when the orginators of the experiments had no idea about how we function 'in here' and so the confusion of consciousness/speciesness - as covered in another link you obviously didn?t read:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html

> The ONLY real difference between your XOR and entanglment, is that you
> limit XOR to local situations because your focus is on the interation
> of wave dynamics. But in the REAL world, its not quite as simple as
> this, wave dynamics are null and void when atoms influence each other
> over vast distances.
>

Your being silly; you are not thinking clearly. The IDM work with recursion and XOR applies to recursion PERIOD. No matter what scale it is operating at. The IDEAS you discuss have their roots in thinking recursively such that properties of the METHOD seep-in to the model.

> The neuron is just another medium that EXPRESSES a deeper energy at
> work.
>

The neuron reflect an adaptation to the environment that 'best fits' the modelling of that environment and that adaptation is to differentiating/integrating. Simple. There is no 'deeper energy' as such in that the properties and methods of our analysis of particle physics or molecular biology or QM will ALWAYS reduce to a core, asymmetric dichotomy, that will manifest the characteristics of the core, GENERAL asymmetric dichotomy that seeds our thinking - differentiating/integrating. IOW we REFLECT 'out there' and it is that reflection that allows our maps to work despite the often surface-level confusion with labels/interpretations.

You put QM first as something to be taken literally rather than as a metaphor mixing OUR idealism with the materialism of the universe - IOW all specialisations are hybrid maps, they are not the territory. The closer you get to the territory the closer you get to our neurology and its processing of sensory data. The 'best fit' map that is closest to that territory is a map that accommodates all senses and allows for the sharing and transposition of sense data across sense data. THAT map can only operate at the level of the SPECIES and so is VAGUE - IOW the IDM material. (and note the the local/nonlocal dichotomy is a member of the set of dichotomies all describing differentiating/integrating characteristics expressed in specialist contexts)

Given that material we can follow-through into specialisations and flesh them out with finer details - as shown by the work on ICPlus, the MBTI, categories of emotions etc etc etc

Sorry to say Matt but you are still struggling with current dogma and as such will not be capable of fully appreciating the full spectrum of the IC or all else for that matter until you start to fully comprehend what IDM is on about.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

oh - and just to cover the particulars of the IC and its relation to asymmetric/symmetric dichotomies etc- from my ICPlus intro page:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/5941.jpg

The 'traditional' I Chings, all of the different interpretations/translations, come out of the middle position or right position in the above diagram. If we treat these as 'transparent', so stacking all of these local maps, one atop the other, will start to bring out the universal patterns, the potentials that are actualised in different contexts. As such, the "Book of Structure" covers the 'regular', the right element in the above diagram where all is linked together.

Our brains reflect this dynamic where the genetics is the nature and exposure to reality, nurture, skews development to fit the local context. This dynamic operates at all scales such that neural networks reflect 'small world networks'as do our social collectives.

In the formation of the genetic level, the 'complete' whole with all of its links, the method of deriving structures from yin/yang reflects the extracting of parts from a whole. In the brain this is done through recursionand the use of the XOR operator (exclusive OR). This operator allows us to extract objects out of complex patterns (and so allows us at time to 'err' in that process and end up with a sensory paradox). In the I Ching we move from the single dichotomyof yin/yang to complex forms of 2-line, 3-line, 6-line, and 12-line representations (digrams, trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams). The main focus here will be on the structures of hexagrams, with some reference to trigrams and dodecagrams.

The brain dynamics referenced above focuses on extracting from a complex pattern (an integrates 'whole', a focus on linking and so AND-ness) the parts that make up that pattern. In the I Ching this dynamic of XOR/AND will bring out 64 hexagrams of the I Ching - all ordered into a sequence of structures where the sequence is called the 'binary' sequence.

This sequence of 64 hexagrams is made-up of eight octets, where each octet is made up of eight hexagrams all with the same trigram as base. The WHOLE sequence of hexagrams has a STRUCTURAL focus that reflects TWO forms of interpretations regarding the nature of these structures and their relationship to all of the others.

The nature of the yin/yang dichotomy allows us to map to that dichotomy, and all of the structures derived from the recursion of that dichotomy, ANY dichotomies but in TWO forms - symmetric vs asymmetric.

A symmetric dichotomyis where the elements of the dichotomy are at the general nature, the same. For example, if we want to map the IQ or EQ of 'people' so the context is of 'all people' and we want to extract the spread of the expression of IQ or EQ. This process will give us a Gaussian, or 'normal', distribution curve. The generic qualities of the dichotomy are thus of like natures - differentiating/differentiating or integrating/integrating. The symmetry is in an aspect, e.g. positive/negative, and so the elements appear as 'opposites' where we are trying to categorise DIFFERENCES FROM SAMENESS.

An asymmetric dichotomyis where the elements of the dichotomy are at the general nature, different - where this difference is in exaggerations of one element from the other - e.g. the dichotomy of ACTUAL/POTENTIAL. Recursion applied to this type of dichotomy will create a SPECTRUM(and so a focus on power laws) of categories and as such span levels of a hierarchy, from general-to-particular, potential-to-actual, crisp-from-vague, precise-from-approximate, hot-from-cold (as such we are not at a single level of analysis - hot/cold reflects a hierarchy of temperature differences and so spanning energy levels). With these sorts of dichotomies the focus is on identifying, categorising, SAMENESS ACROSS DIFFERENCES. The core focus is on the elements that generically reflect association of differentiating/integrating elements in the dichotomy.

Symmetric dichotomies focus on analysis WITHIN a level, a single context. Asymmetric dichotomies focus on analysis BETWEEN levels and so cover multiple contexts. The abstract nature of yin/yang, also representable in 'bit' (BInary Digit) form as 0/1, allows for the I Ching to reflect both forms of dichotomies and the nature of recursion ensures that these different types of dichotomies are linked together as fundamental to the structure of the I Ching.

Due to the nature of these two forms of dichotomies, when applied recursively, the binary sequence is interpretable as a 'mirrored' system of STRUCTURAL opposites as well as STRUCTURAL complements. Due to the self-referencing, so each octet reflects the properties and methods of the WHOLE sequence - this is called 'fractal' behaviour where we see the same patterns reflected at different scales.

[martin]

Differentiating, integrating, recursion - it seems to me that we are talking about fairly general properties or abilities of "mind" or "intelligence".
I find it hard to think of a system that I would call (reasonably) intelligent or smart and that does not differentiate/integrate (a minimum requirement, I would say) and that does not in some way make use of recursion to refine its sensitivity and to go "meta" (i.e. exhibit at least some degree of self reference).

If we limit ourselves to neuron based life forms we can be a bit more specific in our analysis but I think that a lot of what IDM says applies to all (reasonably) intelligent organisms or systems, neuron based or not.
And this is relevant for our discussion about QM.

If what Chris, based on IDM, says about QM is indeed true and if the IDM analysis applies to ANY (smart enough) mind that does experiments in QM than ANY mind would come to the same conclusions as us.
It would detect a wave-particle duality, for example.

Now what does this mean?
If every imaginable observer, every mind, neuron based or not, even the (for some hypothetical) universal mind, MUST (by the very nature of intelligence) come to the same conclusions about what is "out there", can we then still say that these concusions are "merely" artifacts of what is "in here"?

Bishop Berkeley would very probably say no, it makes no sense to insist that something does not really exist if it cannot possibly be perceived in any other way.
Bohr would probably also say no, in line with his (now known as "Copenhagen") interpretation of QM. But perhaps his reasons were more of a practical nature and not "deep" philosophical ones. I don't know.
In any case, today most physicists seem to think something like "let's do as if it is really out there and go on with the show, who cares?"

In an earlier post Chris referred to the difference between epistomology (our knowing, how we know) and ontology (what is) and of course this is what this is all about.
It's a slippery subject, if you ask me. Ooops http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif.

[lightofdarkness]

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Posted by Martin (Martin) on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 2:17 pm:
>
> Differentiating, integrating, recursion - it seems to me that we are
> talking about fairly general properties or abilities of "mind" or
> "intelligence".
> I find it hard to think of a system that I would call (reasonably)
> intelligent or smart and that does not differentiate/integrate (a
> minimum requirement, I would say) and that does not in some way make
> use of recursion to refine its sensitivity and to go "meta" (i.e.
> exhibit at least some degree of self reference).
>
> If we limit ourselves to neuron based life forms we can be a bit more
> specific in our analysis but I think that a lot of what IDM says
> applies to all (reasonably) intelligent organisms or systems, neuron
> based or not.
> And this is relevant for our discussion about QM.
>
> If what Chris, based on IDM, says about QM is indeed true and if the
> IDM analysis applies to ANY (smart enough) mind that does experiments
> in QM than ANY mind would come to the same conclusions as us.
> It would detect a wave-particle duality, for example.
>

Yes. But as analysis of the 'paradox' continues so out would pop what IDM is saying - the recognition of the paradox as a result of consciousness (and von Neumann was the first to recognise this back in the 50s in that he speculated that the 'wave collapse' occurred 'in the brain' but he could not identify how. There was no recognition that the experimental design was self-referencing and so recursive and that what would appear on the photographic plate was the consequences of that recursion in its ad hoc, and so indeterminate, form (see the digrams in the ICPlus/QM page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus/WaveStructure.html )

> Now what does this mean?
> If every imaginable observer, every mind, neuron based or not, even
> the (for some hypothetical) universal mind, MUST (by the very nature
> of intelligence) come to the same conclusions about what is "out
> there", can we then still say that these concusions are "merely"
> artifacts of what is "in here"?
>

It gets into the concept of maya. For such a concept to come about indicated at least an intuitive awareness of the differences of consciousness/speciesness. The IDM material validates the concept, and so the intuition, through empirically-sourced data re how 'in here' operates.

The 'complexity' of QM etc is reduced to understanding how our consciousness mediates with reality but has done so blind to the workings of the unconscious and so our organic nature as a species.

Knowing what we now know re 'in here' puts all specialisations up for review and in that review we find extensions a la XOR that take us into areas never considered before in the context of sociological and psychological dynamics, determinism etc etc

The ONLY category system well-developed enough to be a source of analogy in this analysis is the universal IC.

Chris.

[bruce]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/5945.jpg

[lightofdarkness]

yes Bruce, self-replication comes out of increased differentiation dynamics. At the really 'generic' level we are dealing with interactions of a species with the context - either to remove other species through combat or remove them through drowning them out with images of our selves.

Thus ANGER (heaven) and SEX[love] (lake) come out of a generic 'need' to replace the context with one of one's own making - and so differentiating one from the others.

This increase in differentiating means that anger and sex dominate the more 'universals oriented' collectives - the realm of fundamentalism, capitalism, competitiveness (note that sex is cooperative short term, competitive long term)

Thus the USofA for example (and western mindsets or those trained in capitalism etc) has a dominating bias to 'yang' dynamics in the form of promotion of universals of anger and sex.

This promotion means a play on the anger/sex dichotomy and so out of the middle of that emerges mediation industries a la negotiators, auditors, umpires, psychotherapists etc etc

Chris.

[martin]

Do you really have blue hair, Chris? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[matt]

Chris, sorry for my delayed response, it is on its way, the weekends hold a lot more than debating for me however, and I'd like to answer your posts throroughly, so my post may take some time to write.

Just to add - I really have no problem keeping up with your 'unitelligable' language, it just takes me a few seconds longer to translate your jargon into communication - and before you make the comment that 'if people cant keep up, then they should study more and re-invigorate their knowledge' - I read a couple of paragraphs of your recent post to my Dad, for curiositys sake. My Dad has an electrical/mechanical engineering background and now works as a specialist consultant to building power stations, so hes not dull, and he just laughed and said; 'What complete nonsense, in my experience people who speak like that, do so unnecessarily, and with no real understanding of language'.

It really does seem you speak 'the language of the vague' http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[matt]

Hey Chris,

Your right, all Physics has been making the same mistake for a long time. If we look back to Newton?s era of causal determinism, then the view of the universe was very much like a giant mechanistic clock, and to study that clock all we had to do was simply dissect it into its tiniest pieces, find out how things ?worked?, and then correlated small observations with large observations. The trouble was that the workings of the universal were not as symmetrically perfect as this; the truth was a little more dynamic. And the second problem, as Quantum physics later found out, is that science at the particle levels no longer holds a position of objectivity. All matter is affected by the observer, the particle-wave duality was born, and we found that if we focus on a particle is behaves like a singular fixed point in time/space, and our non-focus meant it acted like a wave ? hence observation created the wave collapse. So we are suddenly faced with the reality that objectivity is subjective, and that consciousness is the ?reacts? with out surroundings.

So our focus became consciousness itself. As a means of understanding reality, we first had to understand the way we all SAW reality. Kant was the first to say that our brains were the filters of a reality we could never truly grasp in its entirety. So if we look at the Brain, and the numerous ways it ?translates? the outer world, then we can possibly start understanding MORE of the whole, and we would do this by constructing a spectrum range of all possible frequencies our brains receive ? and then look for patterns in consciousness. I mean, that?s all our brains are ? everything we receive from the ?outer world? is just a plethora of frequencies from electromagnetic waves ? our ability to judge spatial differences (whether the table is nearer to me than the chair), or our ability to differentiate colours, they are simply different parts of a more universal spectrum. So for example, the Fourier transformation in the brain converted a set of overlapping wave frequencies (the data received by the eye), which are scattered over the neurons, and then memorized by the brain as a ?wave pattern?. This was likened to the way a hologram stores data. And so our consciousness interpreted a limited part of that spectrum, in fact even the SPECTRUM ITSELF is limited, due to the technology we possess.

So we now see the brain as some kind of ?super-computer?. So research continued, multiple theories were adopted in the pursuit of answers. So then Pibram?s theory of the holographic brain could then be combined with Bohms work on a holographic universe ? and what do we get? ? The Holographic Paradigm ? the universe is just a huge ocean of electromagnetic forces, and our consciousness encodes various levels of reality, but we are limited because we can all encode just a small part of that ocean, never the whole.
Ohhh! And if only there was a fish swimming in that ocean who COULD encode the whole? the possibilities.

There is even a quantum brain theory which is based on the principles of Quantum computing. It?s a little different than the holographic paradigm, but its ?another? theory. Hameroff and Penrose proposed that it isn?t the NEURONS that are the important part of consciousness, the neurons were essential for sending and receiving, but things lay deeper than this. The proposed that the cytoskeleton on a cell held the answers, and this also explained why non-neuron dependent species could perform intelligent tasks ? the neuron wasn?t the intelligence kicker, something inside the cytoskeleton was. So inside the cell lay the cytoskeleton, and inside the cytoskeleton lay the microtubules, and the microtubules were made of tubules (protein), and here Hameroff proposed another answer! Wow, science sure knows how to dissect unnecessarily doesn?t it !! Hameroff found highly ordered water inside the microtubules, and there were bio photons in quantum state (this means they are in wave form, and so are essentially creatively malleable). He proposed that this is how the brain stores qubits (vast amounts of data in wave form), and this is how they are passed around not just the brain, but the body too.
In fact, it goes as far to say, ?The Quantum Brain Theory? is not the theory of consciousness in the brain only? it is implying that consciousness is within ALL cells, neurons and no neurons, it allows for the interchange of quantum information (just a fancy way of saying LOTS of information passed instantaneously in wave form) around the body, so? consciousness is not just in the brain? its in the WHOLE body.

And then Penrose went a step further in offering a new interpretation on the Copenhagen dilemma ? the collapse of the wave due to conscious observation. He went on to provide a silly amount of data on quantum gravity (I don?t understand it all, so I wont bore you with it here). What they were saying is this ? All thoughts we have are just a collapse of universal thoughts. They are saying that the universe itself IS A SUPER CONSCIOUSNESS. So thoughts of the universal mind collapse into our individual minds in the qubits in the brain. They even went as far as saying that their theoretical model is consistent with the teachings of some religions, and the concept of universal mind and consciousness. So, they are saying the brain is a RECIEVER of energy from an external source, like a TV Ariel receives a signal and then converts it into a picture for us to watch, and that universal consciousness is everywhere, in all things. This theory is also consistent with the concept of chakras as a medium to receive energy from higher sources, and this energy does not have to be channelled through the brain, it can be received through any cell in the body.

When I talked about nolocality and entanglement, the purpose was not to argue upon the scientific ramifications of such a concept, it was merely to show that our universe is like an ocean of energy. And in this ocean there really in NO differentiation between one part of the ocean with another ? the ONLY differentiation comes from the way our consciousness interprets and receives that ocean. So do we focus on the ocean or the fish that is swimming in that ocean? It is more ?scientific? if we focus on the fish, and as that fish we swim about as much in the ocean as possible, collecting various data, and adding qualities to the spectrum we have made to describe it. The problem is? if we view the ocean with a spectrum, then we are really denying the truth of it, our consciousness will ALWAYS be limited if we think in spectral terms.

Have you ever had an experience where you feel yourself merge into universal consciousness? Where it seems that every movement, every turn and blow of the wind, every branch rocking, every sensation received, is significant, and it is something you could never explain in a logical fashion, especially to a logical person. Why? Because their consciousness hasn?t ?touched this part of the universal spectrum yet?, they are unable to understand it in any way, they have no internalised ?wave-forms? in their brains to say ?yeah I know what you are talking about!? Instead they try rationalising the ?profound spiritual experience? by using their own wave forms of their limited spectrum. I think it was Bruce who once said, ?How can you describe a waterfall to someone who has never seen one?? And he went on to say, you could explain it logically, but it would be no substitute for the experience. This is what I am saying about universal consciousness. There ARE people who have had moments of wholeness, the spectrum no longer exists, and this experience cannot be derived from recursive dictomies or analytical reasoning, it can only be derived from be open to certain energies ? to assume you know nothing, and in allowing to do so you invite new ways of viewing/experiencing. If you assume to know everything already, then it?s a sad affair, because you will forever be stuck with the same ?wave patterns? in your head.

The traditional perspectives of the I Ching offer valuable pathways to opening these doors to new ways of viewing, their poetic and metaphoric licensing challenges the ?brain? to not rely upon ?old wave forms?, but invite newer ones. Your own work Chris, is excellent, but I really do think you miss the potential of what you COULD be doing with it. For me personally, I believe the I Ching is from a place where all energy is ONE, from a place where there are no differentiations, no separations, no polarisations, a place where consciousness plays merrily in the playground of creation. If you were to liken this unified energy to a particular emotion, you could call it love. And.. hehe.. before you start going on about ?love issues that I may have?, then anything you ATTACH to love is not love, any modes of competitiveness, jealousy, envy, all of these are quite simply ?love misinterpreted?. They are the add-ons we create because we are not capable of dealing with an energy that is ONE. So the I ching coming from this place of unified energy, then describes how that one-ness is fragmented, how its different parts act upon each other in a wonderful dynamic. The I Ching is basically saying to us ?Hey, I?m from a pretty cool place of wholeness, this is how my parts work, wanna try to put me back together again??
I have derived this view from my own experiences, my own wave-patterns in my head, and maybe, just maybe, there are some people on this forum who have parts of the ?universal spectrum? you haven?t seen yet? it would be wiser to listen a little more.

ohhh p.s. You asked if 'I had a deathwish'?
How did you know!!!?? Often, I will get a little pent up, and I'll grab my red headband, tie it around my head, and then phone the British government and say "Hey its Matt Rambo, I've got a deathwish, please send me into the jungle so I can take on 50 million troops and tanks". But unfortunately, the Government seem to have come to the same conclusion as you did, the normally reply; "Sorry Matt Rambo, but you are a little too 'yin' for this mission, how about you lose the dress and lipstick and we'll reconsider".
Its so unfair.... I love this dress... and the lipstick goes beautifully with my eyes...

[hester]

". . . in fact even the SPECTRUM ITSELF is limited, due to the technology we possess."

Question? Matt? Is it possible to concieve of a technology, in science, that could collect information in a non-spectral way? A machine (not human) with sensors which collect information that isnt just radiation? As far as I know, every observation we make in the physical world is measured by telescopes, microscopes, satellite disks, lasers, magnetic resonance imaging. . . in fact it would be interesting to make a whole list (in any case, detecting radiation, frequencies) which is why I found your pointed appreciation of the "spectral" nature of what we usually take for granted -- and don't even think could be qualified in a different way -- so interesting. This does pose a problem for the future of science, doesn't it? How could we study the world around us without machines?

Or, and I'm just thinking, should the adjustment not be in terms of technology, but in terms of something else -- our understanding of what we are doing, the limits of our data? I think that this dilemma you have highlighted is so interesting, not just because it is forcing people to question what "science" is, but because it will force people to recognize "cosmology" as a branch even worth pointing out.

[bruce]

Matt, liked your post a lot. A little spooky to pop on here and read it though, as I just posted this to a different group:

Truth is truth. We can only analyze it so much, break it down into as many components as possible. We can reference and cross reference; whatever it takes to get a closer look. Sometimes we forget to open the lens, to step back a few thousand miles, maybe a few million. From out there, truth doesn?t look so complicated. Truth is truth. Ya find it where ya look.

Parallel waves? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/mischief.gif

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Matt, some points in response to your above post. (unfortunately you are telling me nothing new re some interpretation of reality etc; there is nothing I dont already know about having spent considerable time on analysis of how we derive and communicate meaning - be it real or imagined):

(0) Your prose seems to miss the point re IDM etc in that you are focused upon an particular ontological perspective that is current dogma. IDM covers all POSSIBLE ontologies re the core FEELINGS that seed the expressions. IOW the interpretations are predictable given an understanding of the context but they are not the final word. Your focus is like that of taking a particular derived hexagram as the 'full story' of some moment when in fact it is a PART of that story in that using 'random' methods means ALL hexagrams are valid and get sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order (you brain does that instinctively - your consciousness tries to focus on the best fit as if the full fit)

(1) I am well aware of Hameroff and Penrose work having been an active member of the Quantum Mind list back in the late 90s (see their archives http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/quantum-mind/ , and Hameroff's attempts to continue the work through the consciousness studies center as part of the University of Arizona at Tuscon - http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/)

(2) The adaptation of our brains to vision, and so light processing, had some interesting consequences (artifacts) that include the issues of sensory paradox. See prose and refs in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/light.html

as well as the paradox page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

With our model-making derived from our consciousness so that methodology defines meaning but in doing so it comes up with paradox. Why? Because it does not recognise itself as a particular, as a part of the whole that is our speciesness.

When we focus on our speciesness (and so our neurology etc) out comes the full methodology used by the species and from there we can start to see the cause of the misinterpretations of what is going on.

(3) Your focus on the emotion of love emphasises the full dichotomy of love/grief that is a PART of the full spectrum being delt with and which is covered in the binary sequence of the IC. For the IDM mapping see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html (also search the clarity archives as I have covered the IC/emotions link many times before) - given the direction of development of the species in general, the high energy focus favours anger and sex as dominating emotions in the development of the collective. Your choice is to sex (lover not a fighter ;-)) and thats fine but it is a small part of the set of POSSIBLES where LOCAL context will select the 'best fit-worst fit' mappings.

(4) The spectrum form of communication (IOW we communcate through spectrum exchange) has its roots in spectrum extraction from data - and there ARE neurons that do exactly that - see comments and refs in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/prisms.html

(5) With the spectrum sharing also comes neurons that allow for mimicry (mirror neurons) showing the use of positive (differentiating) and negative (integrating) feedback loops that allow for the development of complex neural networks and so we move into small world vs regular networks (you seem to ignore the fact that we are all born with a base hypothesis about reality - it is in the form of our set of instincts. LOCAL reality will then ground these potentials in the actual but in doing so can ignore and/or marginalise aspects of that full spectrum. - see such diagrams as

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/smallworlds1.jpg

and

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dimensions.html )


(6) the IDM material covers the roots of meaning from differentiating/integrating and that includes all sensations of 'disappearing', losing boundaries and sinking into the universe - this is best experienced in sex at the point of orgasm - that comes in two forms, the other being the explicit sense of 'oneness', of pointedness rather than of fieldness, from a differentiating position and so heightened consciousness. (so we see (a) a sense of loss of boundary and (b) a sense of over-emphasis on boundary)

(7) We can also bring these differences out using drugs that play on the different chemical pathways on our brains due to the lateralisation. Thus cocaine, speed, dopamine etc favour integration WITHIN the sense of self and associate with exaggerated senses of power, self etc and an over-positive nature that can be turned into paranoia if we introduce difference to the context.

OTOH the other pathway covers use of ecstasy, LSD, serotonin etc with an exaggerated sense of connection with 'out there',a focus on BETWEEN. The price here for the extremes is not paranoia etc, it is depression.

Your overview of things may be of interest to those have NOT reviewed in detail the different areas you touch on but your overview sells current dogma and it is obvious that you have accepted what you have read without question - but then that is an 'engineering' approach; if it works use it, no time to question etc.

Read more. Go through the IDM reference material, grasshopper. You are over-focused on the metaphors of ontology and taking them literally without due consideration of the epistemological factors that show the method used to derive meaning.

Understand the properties and methods of the universal, regular network, of the IC, and so transcend the LOCAL, small world, network currently used by most IC users.

By doing so you move into the 21st century AD rather than spend time repeating the 10th century BC.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Hester, our serial processing of data gives us precision greater than the 'holistic', immediate, parallel processing. Our consciousness, through spectrum analysis and so through recursion of data to elicit a spectrum, allows us to refine the realm of the parallel and so work 'intuitively' - when we are born we are born as a complete but general 'whole' that the local context then customises - and so our senses are integrated but raw. Experience then differentiates and reintegrates our senses (this gets into such experiences as synesthesia etc - see my synesthesia pages starting with: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html )

Integrating with the local context will refine intuitions/habits and so make one's interaction with the context 'smooth' and so organic, holistic, immediate.

Since the structure of the IC, in particular the binary sequence, reflects the 'full spectrum' of our being, so learning that full spectrum works as a guide to personal as well as collective behaviours but for ANY context and so makes us more 'universal' in where we can hang our hat and call it 'home'.

An alternative to the rigid serial, single context, workings of our consciousness is to let things develop over time rather than try and focus on NOW (where we have to maximise bandwidth, use lots of energy etc for some specialist perspective) - the problem is that the time factor favours the species - not the individual!

Note that in autism etc the single context focus is over-exaggerated and so allows for refined specialisation in some particular area - and so out pop savants. The success of this area comes at a price so we need to try and find some 'middle' position to exploit such learning skills.

Chris.

[matt]

Hey Hester http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif The machine of science still has a long way to go before it can even come close to defining the truth of reality. The technology we use currently is a reflection of the mental habits we have formed about the universe around us - we see separation/differentiation and so we create a spectrum to highlight such a vision. Human experience is the key.

Hey Bruce http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif Definitely synchronised thoughts! I agree exactly with what you said!

Hey Chris http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif I'll highlight some points -

First of all, I knew you had knowledge of the yechnical aspects I spoke of, but it would be naive of me to think that only you and I were reading this thread, so I saw nothing wrong in summarising very briefly the journey we have taken to reach our current view of consciousness, it was for others benefit not yours. (Remember, this is a public forum, but if you ever want to talk privately about this, then by all means add me to a messanger service, I'll send you lots of hearts and kisses http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif )

" Your focus is like that of taking a particular derived hexagram as the 'full story' of some moment when in fact it is a PART of that story in that using 'random' methods means ALL hexagrams are valid and get sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order (you brain does that instinctively - your consciousness tries to focus on the best fit as if the full fit)"

No, thats not my focus at all. I would have to de-evolve from your beloved grasshopper into a complete bafoon if I saw it like this. Lets talk in wave terms again - a hexagram could be seen as a leading 'expression' of a wave, but still part of a whole. All hexagrams are contained within the waves frequenecy, yet its characteristics can take on a specfific form - and that form is dependent on the consciousness that is observing it and the wave itself from a non-observable point. When I talk about the 'spectrum', I do not mean a separation of the 64 hexagrams into 64 small groups of 1 hexagram, I completely agree with you that each tiny part of that spectrum is ALL, yet in different expressed form. Its quite an obvious thing Chris.

"(3) Your focus on the emotion of love emphasises the full dichotomy of love/grief that is a PART of the full spectrum being delt with and which is covered in the binary sequence of the IC"

Hehe, ohhh Chris! I knew you would start talking about the competitive sex/fighter aspects! I cannot really say anything here to you about love - its not something that can be spoken of, its something to be experienced. In the relative terms I used love - as a comparison to unified energy - then we do have different 'perspectives' on love (for me, love has nothing to do with sex) Thats fine, I'm certainly not going to argue about it with you.
Thats making me smile, because I saw it coming as soon as I wrote it http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

"(4) The spectrum form of communication (IOW we communcate through spectrum exchange) has its roots in spectrum extraction from data - and there ARE neurons that do exactly that"

Of course there are neurons that do that!!! They HAVE to do that because thats the way we have been teaching ourselves to SEE things for centuries!! Neurons are conscious-driven, they are like clay - we can mold them into performing whichever task we would like! Take responsibility for your own neurons, I do. But just because scienece has described our universe in the the form of fragmented spectrum images, this does not mean I will forever abide by this limited way of viewing, I'm in charge of my own neurons through the power of my intent and expectation. Habits Chris, just habits - it doesnt mean that this particular neurons ULTIMATE PURPOSE is to extract data from the spectrum, it just means this is the role we have allowed to to take now!

"5) With the spectrum sharing also comes neurons that allow for mimicry (mirror neurons) showing the use of positive (differentiating) and negative (integrating) feedback loops that allow for the development of complex neural networks and so we move into small world vs regular networks (you seem to ignore the fact that we are all born with a base hypothesis about reality - it is in the form of our set of instincts."

Talking about neuron function - see above - the neuron is not the GUIDE of our consciousness Chris, it is THE FOLLOWER. The neuron will adapt to whatever your consciousness allows it. The small world/regular netowkrs you speak of is something YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS is familiar with - the neurons in your brain are interpreting reality this way so they are working FOR your consciousness - and its not so hard to see why - you worked as a computer programmer for years, you have a defined and specific way of viewing the structured order of things - so your brain will be FOLLOWING your consciousness.
Chris, you and I could both look at the same thing, and where as you see differentiation/a spectrum, I could see something totally different. The spectrum is limited, both consciously and universally. And I dont ignore the fact we are all born with instincts, I just see them in different ways than you do.

Ohh you can bet I'll read up more, I'm always reading up more, I cant help it, my brain is too thirsty for new ways of seeing. And one thing I should note to you - you said that everything I have read I have taken as 'the word', ohhh Chris!! Thats not how I work at all. I dont have any 'fixed opinions' on this, but I have lots and lots of ideas - but those ideas are ALL open for new ways of seeing/growing. As soon as I solidify an idea and say 'yes thats now my reality' then I deny myself new possibilties for my consciousness to become more aware.

" Hester, our serial processing of data gives us precision greater than the 'holistic', immediate, parallel processing. Our consciousness, through spectrum analysis and so through recursion of data to elicit a spectrum, allows us to refine the realm of the parallel and so work 'intuitively' "

This is a complete untruth. You should replace the word 'intuitively' with 'logically'. There is a difference between them, logic seeks to expand its awareness through such things as spectrum analysis, whilst intuition sees no such spectrum.

Okay, breakfast time.

[lightofdarkness]

>
> Hey Chris http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif I'll highlight some points -
>
> " Your focus is like that of taking a particular derived hexagram as
> the 'full story' of some moment when in fact it is a PART of that
> story in that using 'random' methods means ALL hexagrams are valid and
> get sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order (you brain does that
> instinctively - your consciousness tries to focus on the best fit as
> if the full fit)"
>
> No, thats not my focus at all. I would have to de-evolve from your
> beloved grasshopper into a complete bafoon if I saw it like this. Lets
> talk in wave terms again - a hexagram could be seen as a leading
> 'expression' of a wave, but still part of a whole. All hexagrams are
> contained within the waves frequenecy, yet its characteristics can
> take on a specfific form - and that form is dependent on the
> consciousness that is observing it and the wave itself from a
> non-observable point. When I talk about the 'spectrum', I do not mean
> a separation of the 64 hexagrams into 64 small groups of 1 hexagram, I
> completely agree with you that each tiny part of that spectrum is ALL,
> yet in different expressed form. Its quite an obvious thing Chris.

No need for consciousness. You are rejecting the realm from which consciousness has arisen but then you obviously have a need to put consciousness as originating when the evidence is to the contrary; IOW there is no necessity to have consciousness as originating to describe what is going on.

The material of the IC is metaphor for what is behind the expression - the patterns of differentiating/integrating that the brai