A new form of Science

[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

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., & 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:

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

.

 

[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]

 

[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?

 

[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'

 

[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?

 

[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

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

Definitely synchronised thoughts! I agree exactly with what you said!

Hey Chris

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

)

" 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

"(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

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 brain deals with. A hexagram or trigram is a form of representation of patterns derived from ancient China. That does not mean that what is represented does not exist prior to the particular representation.

The spectrum that is the I Ching, expressed in its binary format, is mapped to the frequencies covered from low to high, and so from AM issues to FM issues. This is well covered in empirical studies of sensory systems and brain dynamics (see refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html )

>
> "(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
>

>

I can say a LOT about love, covering its full spectrum of which, from an evolution perspective, has its roots in self replication (and so allowing for narcissism, vanity etc)

What you fail to see is that in the process of deriving meaning, all possible meanings are recruited to flesh-out each possible. Sexual love, and that means mental as well as physical - and so 'Hollywood' and its charismatic types elicit 'love' from their audience and in so doing replicate themselves in the minds of others - contributes to all of the other categories. For the IC in particular the core symbol is that of the lake/mountain pair. Lake for the intense love of NOW, mountain for that of past/future (and so a lost love or a possible future love - from sadness/grief we learn discernment, quality control, and so mental 'love')

Each of the other emotion categories have 'love' in them expressed as lake/mountain in the top position of the hexagram.

> "(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!!

Really. Well there happens to a be a plethora of neuron-dependent life forms that have developed complex neural network over millions of years, not centuries. Our thinking today is not much different IN GENERAL to that of our species 10,000 years ago (nore is it that much different from the tiny zebra fish of today) It is the DETAILS, the precision, the continuity in thought, that differ in that the labels are more refined and our knowledge better organised. You are obviously a touch na?ve in this area - some references for you to get from the library:

Prete, F.R.,(ed)(2004)"Complex Worlds from Simpler Nervous Systems" MITP
Rogers, L.L., & Andrew, R.J., (2002) "Comparative Vertebrate Lateralisation" CUP

If you don?t understand the language - learn it. You cannot speculate on anything without understanding the methodology that drives that speculation and today we have access to properties and methods of that methodology.

>
> Neurons are conscious-driven,
>

No evidence for this at all from an originating position. You are confused re consciousness as originating vs derived. Lower life forms with limited to no self-awareness have limited to no feedback loops. It is the increased complexity in the neural development ( a response to environmental pressures etc) that allows for the increase in differentiations and so an increase in complexity/chaos dynamics and so an increase in emergence properties that include self-referencing. The development of differentiating is a core requirement for this level of precision and so for assertion of consciousness in organisms.

What the XOR material does is introduce a whole new level of understanding re evolution etc

> they are like clay - we
> can mold them into performing whichever task we would like!

Boy - you are young aren?t you. Learning is bounded by the limits of the neuron and they are differentiating/integrating. WITHIN those bounds everyday experiences can customise the filters of the dendrites to give us post-synaptic structures that get 'pushed' by the context to elicit customised behaviours. All of this is covered in IDM - see in particular the 'summary' essay on the transcending/transforming functions in the neurology (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/ideal.html )

IOW, as a species we are born with a set of sensory systems and a general purpose communications system configured with some 'basic' instincts. Context will then 'guide' development - see the page on synesthesia - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html

What consciousness does for our species is allow for the use of DELAY to refine our skills. This associates mindless stimulus/response to the dendrite/axon dynamic with the delay factor working at the positions of post synaptic gap and the soma (synchronisations, increase bandwidth through recruitment etc etc)

Once a skill has been developed to a point it is useful so we 'forget' it - and the delay will disappear as we switch to trust our instincts and work off autopilot. (see such research as:

Libet, J., (2004) "Mind Time" OUP )

The difference between our consciousness involvement and our autopilot is about 0.5 seconds.

The prime source of delay at the level of the brain is in the frontal lobes as they repress the more primitive, instinctive, emotional responses to stimulus - and so from instant gratification we have learnt mediation and so delayed gratification. (the frontal lobes develop AFTER all else and as such need training to work properly. THERE is the interaction of consciousness and delay etc, not in the mindless areas of our past)

> 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!
>

LOL! Well have fun in discovering your limitations. When the wheels start to fall off you model pay IDM a visit - you may find it helpful.


> "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.

No. you are too either/or in thinking. The core focus is on being REACTIVE to the sensory systems as they develop and respond to the environment. There is a transition phase from being reactive to being proactive but this requires high energy, high neural complexity, 24/7 operation. We are the only ones who can do that where the reactive becomes proactive as we gain more experiences and so refine the instincts/habits we have.

You are so focused on yourself and homo sapiens that you ignore the path of development of neural dynamics. See above refs to aid in refining your perspective. Also go through the material of development of small world networks from the regular:

Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" International Publishers

Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow

Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP

Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP

Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown

Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix

Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP

Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge

Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus

Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane

Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann

Ball, P., (2004)"Critical Mass : How one thing leads to another"Heinemann


> The neuron will
> adapt to whatever your consciousness allows it.

Does not need consciousness to do that.

> 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.
>

All I sense here for you is a mix of Delusion/illusion. You will need to so a lot more work to start to 'get it' but in doing so you may find your ground 'unsteady' - the IDM material can help you there.

Your over-emphasis on consciousness rejects the superior depth of the unconscious that is driving you with instincts/habits. The issues with the unconscious are in the lack of details available - this is inevitable in that our species-nature is 'general purpose' and so we are born as 'general purpose' with some family genetics and local context then 'guides' development. That is why it is essential to move yourself out of a context if you need change since the context will not stop pushing your buttons.

<snip>

>
> " 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.
>

Your ignorance is showing again. Intuition is the direct link to parallel processing as compared to the serial of the word, be it written or spoken. Logic comes out of the serial in that it requires differentiating and so XOR dynamics. IOW logic is a tool of consciousness as it mediates with reality. EMOTIONS are the only response system we have that can handle more that 3/4 dimensions and intuition accesses these areas.

Logic reflects what YOU do in deriving some hexagram 'randomly' - it picks a particular. The reality is we work in parallel as a species and so the full spectrum is used at all times, but sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order.

See the refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

> Okay, breakfast time.
>

Enjoy your seeds, grasshopper.

Chris.

 

[matt]

"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."

No, I'm not rejecting the realm from which consciousness had arisen, I'm just seeing consciousness differently than you do. Your view is more mechanistic, mine is more fluid and boundless. Consciousness CAN be originating in that you can open yourself more to the origin, the universal consciousness.

The binary format only covers 50% of 'reality', it only covers that which has a definiite time/space - using metaphors:- the binary is the particle/the matter/the collapse of the wave to give form.

"What you fail to see is that in the process of deriving meaning, all possible meanings are recruited to flesh-out each possible. Sexual love, and that means mental as well as physical - and so 'Hollywood' and its charismatic types elicit 'love' from their audience and in so doing replicate themselves in the minds of others - contributes to all of the other categories. For the IC in particular the core symbol is that of the lake/mountain pair. Lake for the intense love of NOW, mountain for that of past/future (and so a lost love or a possible future love - from sadness/grief we learn discernment, quality control, and so mental 'love')"

I agree and disagree. 31 can represent the urging of emotion/thought, its intensity is very NOW focused. This is because the centralised triple yang lines are outer focused and inner articulating, showing the attention of the individual on the outer world. 32 can represent a more solidified inner nature, the triple yang lines are more inner focuses yet conjoin with the outer, therefore shows partnership in a more sustained form - Inner driven but outer focused still. Hexagram 11 can represent what I am talking about - the triple yang lines are inner focused, whilst the outer yields - in my experience this trigram can represent love or energy unification - Outer and Inner serve each other equally, and love is shown as a self originating quality, rather than an outer focused urge. 'It shines through you'.

"> 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!!

Really. Well there happens to a be a plethora of neuron-dependent life forms that have developed complex neural network over millions of years, not centuries."

Thanks for the references! I'll try to fit them in after Star Trek

I used the term 'centuries' because I was talking in reference to the scientific method of causal determinism - the development of our need to arrange things according to classifications/spectrum analysis. Of course the impressions go way before this, but science solidified their nature, technology was born, and in doing so resulted in a neuron transformation on our part.

"The development of differentiating is a core requirement for this level of precision and so for assertion of consciousness in organisms."

Differeniating is a human process of trying to understand the whole by studying its parts - still very old science isnt it?


"Neurons are conscious-driven,
>

No evidence for this at all from an originating position"

And currently no evidence against, all is theory. However, I'll say it again - neurons are conscious driven.

"Boy - you are young aren?t you. Learning is bounded by the limits of the neuron and they are differentiating/integrating."

Man I am! lol If you would like to keep telling yourself that learning is bounded by the limits of the neuron, then you will forever be 'limited by your neurons'. We can transform the function of our neurons to achieve higher awareness. Our neurons are conscious friendly, hence the qubits in the microtubules are in a quantum state, meaning thought is not only derived from exisiting neuron pattersn but also open to 'quantum possibilties' - the ability to achieve exactly what you think - hence 'the clay of the mind'.

"IOW, as a species we are born with a set of sensory systems and a general purpose communications system configured with some 'basic' instincts."

Yes I call them eyes and ears.

"Once a skill has been developed to a point it is useful so we 'forget' it - and the delay will disappear as we switch to trust our instincts and work off autopilot"

This is obvious - we memorise and interalise wave patterns in our neurons, so habit/replication is a reliance upon existing habitual wave patterns in memory - these are not instincts, these are habits - 'Trusting your habits'. Note:- Intuition is something entirely different, and pure instincts are related.

"(the frontal lobes develop AFTER all else and as such need training to work properly."

Thats great to know! Your'll be happy to know my frontal lobes are advanced in training and could now be called 'ninja lobes'. Chakra work!

"LOL! Well have fun in discovering your limitations. When the wheels start to fall off you model pay IDM a visit - you may find it helpful."

Do you not explore your own limitations? It IS fun Chris! You challenge your beliefs/ideas/thoughts to become ... something else. And when they have become 'something else', you challenge them again, and again, and again. The line between limitation and non-limitation begins to slowly fade. And if the wheels fall off, it just means Ive found flying to be more effective than driving.

" We are the only ones who can do that where the reactive becomes proactive as we gain more experiences and so refine the instincts/habits we have."

This is one of the biggest mistakes neurology has made - and Im surprised because scienece has not learnt from such a mistake. You cannot compare the neuron from species to species - you cant compare the neuron function of an ape with a human - they both have different levels of consciousness - and its like I said, the neuron is the follower of consciousness. The neuron will happily live with a set store of patterns/habits so long as the consciousness is. Comparing other species neurological activity to humans is incredibly stupid. In fact I have words for it:- Uh Uh uh uh uh! (no offense to any monkeys reading)

"All I sense here for you is a mix of Delusion/illusion. You will need to so a lot more work to start to 'get it' but in doing so you may find your ground 'unsteady' "

Damn right Mr Lofting! I do have delusions/illusions, and I do need to do a lot more work before I start to 'get it'. Although the 'it' Im trying to 'get' is something very different than what you are talking about. When I evetually 'get' that 'it', I'll come and see you, maybe have a cup of tea and talk with you about it. But I dont need to add another delusion to my existing ones by studying IDM thankyou.

" IOW logic is a tool of consciousness as it mediates with reality. EMOTIONS are the only response system we have that can handle more that 3/4 dimensions and intuition accesses these areas. "

Exactly

thankyou! Intuition is multi-dimensional, and therefore beyond the realm of 'the spectrum'.

Enjoyable seeds, any more? Grasshoppers hungry.

 

[hester]

http://lab.kira.org/lab/index.html

 

[lightofdarkness]

>
> Posted by Matt (Matt) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:00 am:
>
> "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."
>
> No, I'm not rejecting the realm from which consciousness had arisen,
> I'm just seeing consciousness differently than you do. Your view is
> more mechanistic, mine is more fluid and boundless. Consciousness CAN
> be originating in that you can open yourself more to the origin, the
> universal consciousness.
>

Uh oh.... let me see now, I have DSM-IVR here somewhere....

> The binary format only covers 50% of 'reality', it only covers that
> which has a definiite time/space - using metaphors:- the binary is the
> particle/the matter/the collapse of the wave to give form.
>

The 'dot' size for a particular of consciousness is small compared to the 'dot' size for a general of specieness (and so the unconscious). The perceptions of the psyche are more visual and LACK the precision that comes out of the ego with its bias to audition; vision is always less precise than audition due simply to the baseline between the ears being longer than that between the eyes. This has been generalised to affect cognition.

These sensory differences 'feed' our models of reality such that we instinctively move perspectives from, say, the geometric to the algebraic, reflecting the discretisation of Mathematics. This is reflected in general in movement from the field to the dot where the dot is more precise. Once established we can work to re-integrate all of the dots back into fields. The XOR dynamic in the brain allows us to do that. Once you take into consideration the asymmetry in the process then any 'issues' are easily resolved.

The notions of time and space and spacetime are notions that come out of the dynamic of differentiate/integrate. The hierarchy present in the neurology allows for these notions to be interpreted in different ways - and so time as differentiating takes on properties of the discrete and is mechanised to be slowable, stoppable, even reversible - all useful illusions. OTOH time as integrating takes on properties of the continuous and is organic but lacks the precision possible in differentiating.

Thus the moment you start to talk about space, time, and spacetime you are already one level removed from their reality. The self-referencing of differentiate/integrate brings out all of this - as it does in the IC that is also self-referencing and covers 'all there is' - not the 50% you claim.

If we followed you claim of "The binary format only covers 50% of 'reality'" then the IC would be a total failure in its use and as the universal IC shows it in fact covers 'all there is' to a level never before seen in the 'traditional' perspectives (where it is still considered to reflect 'all there is' but at the small world, local, level)

> "What you fail to see is that in the process of deriving meaning, all
> possible meanings are recruited to flesh-out each possible. Sexual
> love, and that means mental as well as physical - and so 'Hollywood'
> and its charismatic types elicit 'love' from their audience and in so
> doing replicate themselves in the minds of others - contributes to all
> of the other categories. For the IC in particular the core symbol is
> that of the lake/mountain pair. Lake for the intense love of NOW,
> mountain for that of past/future (and so a lost love or a possible
> future love - from sadness/grief we learn discernment, quality
> control, and so mental 'love')"
>
> I agree and disagree. 31 can represent the urging of emotion/thought,
> its intensity is very NOW focused.

No. 31 is about wooing, about enticement and so has a goal that is not yet reached - IOW it is about what COULD BE and covers the methodology in reaching that goal. 31 is the cooperative arm of the 31/33 pair where 33 is the competitive arm, again about enticement but to draw the enemy 'in' - again a focus on 'what could be' or what 'will be' - not about NOW, not about what IS.

31 has its infrastructure described by analogy to

001110
100001
------
101111
------

IOW the overall focus is on 'likemindedness' - 13 - an overall cooperative influence.

33 OTOH has its overall focus on 'forced enclosure' - 49 - an overall competitive influence.

The 'correct sequence' through 31 is described by analogy to

001110
101010
------
100100
------

A focus on 51 and so the movement from 'enlightenment' to 'awareness' (I am sure you can figure out the sexual aspect here)

OTOH the 'correct sequence' through 33 is described by analogy to

001111
101010
------
100101
------

A focus on problem solving moving from 'enlightenment' to 'direction setting'.

32 OTOH covers the notion of commitment (important in sexual relationships ;-)) and has its infrastructure described by analogy to

011100
100001
------
111101
------

A focus on hex 14, a force directing development from the 'center'. (with perseverance comes direction-setting, an ideology)

It is obvious that you are 'constrained' by your focus on the traditional sequence and so oblivious to the high precision details re hexagram properties and methods available when using the binary sequence.


<snip>
>
> "Neurons are conscious-driven,
>
>
>> No evidence for this at all from an originating position"
>
> And currently no evidence against, all is theory. However, I'll say it
> again - neurons are conscious driven.
>

Lots of evidence against - go outside of humans and into other neuron-dependent life forms. Your naivet? is astonishing for someone who fancies themselves as knowing.

> "Boy - you are young aren t you. Learning is bounded by the limits of
> the neuron and they are differentiating/integrating."
>
> Man I am! lol If you would like to keep telling yourself that learning
> is bounded by the limits of the neuron, then you will forever be
> 'limited by your neurons'. We can transform the function of our
> neurons to achieve higher awareness. Our neurons are conscious
> friendly, hence the qubits in the microtubules are in a quantum state,
> meaning thought is not only derived from exisiting neuron pattersn but
> also open to 'quantum possibilties' - the ability to achieve exactly
> what you think - hence 'the clay of the mind'.
>

Your off into gaga land here. You should go to Africa and work with the drought areas, I am sure you will motivate them to ignore their hunger for all of the 'quantum possibilities'!

> "IOW, as a species we are born with a set of sensory systems and a
> general purpose communications system configured with some 'basic'
> instincts."
>
> Yes I call them eyes and ears.
>

Now your being facetious.

> You
> cannot compare the neuron from species to species - you cant compare
> the neuron function of an ape with a human - they both have different
> levels of consciousness - and its like I said, the neuron is the
> follower of consciousness. The neuron will happily live with a set
> store of patterns/habits so long as the consciousness is. Comparing
> other species neurological activity to humans is incredibly stupid. In
> fact I have words for it:- Uh Uh uh uh uh! (no offense to any monkeys
> reading)
>

.. and now your being really silly. Obviously you 'need' to feel 'special' in some way. Your not. Sorry pal but the empirical research re neurons etc out does anything you have come up with - most of which is idealist pap.

If your not prepared to do some work through references etc then you are wasting my time since you are obviously not prepared to review the evidence for the constancy of neuron behaviour across species and so the neuron demonstrating adaptation to a universal where local context elicits all of the diversities.

<snip>
>
> " IOW logic is a tool of consciousness as it mediates with reality.
> EMOTIONS are the only response system we have that can handle more
> that 3/4 dimensions and intuition accesses these areas. "
>
> Exactly

thankyou! Intuition is multi-dimensional, and therefore
> beyond the realm of 'the spectrum'.
>

No. The spectrum is exchanged in parallel rather than in serial. THAT is what the traditionalist fail to see where the FULL spectrum of IC hexagrams is what operates when using 'random' methods. Using the questions method we have a better chance of deriving the best-fit sequence of hexagrams, and so full spectrum for the moment.

WITH the qualities on each point in that spectrum being self-referencing so the spectrum contains both serial and parallel data. You obviously don?t 'get' that.

We are dealing with topology where a finite surface is such that all points are connected and any change in one point will affect all others on that surface. As such the surface is colour coded showing different levels of energy but all of which are linked - as shown in my XOR material re the IC and so, due to the property being of recursion and not the IC, all other recursion-derived systems - and so our senses differentiating/integrating (and so the surface is the sensory cortex of the brain ...)

No more seeds for grasshopper - perhaps more time to reach for the insecticide.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hester -

Religion - immediate gratification, dont ask questions, accept all 'as given'.

Science - delayed gratification, ask LOTS of questions, do not accept all 'as given' since this reflects a focus on expression rather than what is behind it.

The religious experience disease and pray that it will go away.

the scientists experience disease and look behind it to come up with a cure.

There are qualitative issues here of course - the 'immediate gratificationist' experiences a rainbow 'as is'.

The 'delayed gratificationist' experiences a rainbow, asks 'how' and comes up with a model to predict rainbows, how they will emerge (so we can look for them rather then wait for them to magically 'happen') - and even simulate them in CGI etc.

The traditional perspectives of the IC are more religious - whereas the ICPlus perspectives are derived from the delay factor (3000+ years of empirical studies on brain etc)

One issue of course is that identifying the core dichotomies we identify core behaviours of 'immediate' and 'delayed' such that Science itself is a metaphor as are all of the sub-categories within it. IOW the general properties of religion are also reflected in Science - or more so the institution of Science (and so the 'dogma' of Darwin, Einstein etc take on the cult worship of JC etc BUT in Science any conflict is DELAYED through references at 10 paces - in Religion this is not the case as the current issues around the world demonstrate where immediate reactions etc occur.)

Chris.

 

[matt]

Chris, wheres my valentines card?

"Religion - immediate gratification, dont ask questions, accept all 'as given'.

Science - delayed gratification, ask LOTS of questions, do not accept all 'as given' since this reflects a focus on expression rather than what is behind it.

The religious experience disease and pray that it will go away.

the scientists experience disease and look behind it to come up with a cure. "

Are you not aware of 'the placebo effect'?

Human expectation/thought/belief has a powerful effect on reality - patients cure their illnesses by being given 'dummy/fake' treatment - the power of their belief that they are being treated cures them - essentially themselves! The patterns locked in the brain do not replicate themselves in this respect, the neurons do not dictate consciousness - instead consciousness creates new patterns for the brain to follow.

If I read the above desriptions you gave about science/religion, you fit into the latter with your views.

Anyway, lets not debate today!! Its a day of love between people!!! Hug?