For Elvis and Frank

[fkegan]

Sorry Chris,

I only get to one idea of yours and then all the rest is the same nonsense that you keep on spewing forth without any evidence or understanding other than your own fixed ideas.

But let me try one last time with one last bit of your stuff that shows how you are so totally out of it.

'Lower' life forms can count Frank, and as such reflect basic classes of meanings covering numeracy sharable with our more 'advanced' forms of numeracy.

Here you have the key confession that leaves the rest of your claims in the dust.

Yes, Chris, counting is not a matter of mathematics or humanity. There is an ability for basic brain function of many life forms to operate the concrete counting and realization of simple sets of up to 3 items. Great research. I am glad we share that as common ground.

Unfortunately, you then totally lose it and disappear into your private misunderstanding. Although counting is universal, Zero is not. I cited the book from 1 to zero before. There is no zero in the natural world. Your system runs on the zero/one true dichotomy, but that is only in modern mathematics and has no place in any symbolism or system of concrete magnitude. Certainly nothing to do with the I Ching.
Again, you fail totally. Q.E.D. CHECKMATE--GO BACK TO YOUR WEBSITE AND rethink the errors of your ways. Sorry!

Frank

 

[elvis]

Yes, Chris, counting is not a matter of mathematics or humanity. There is an ability for basic brain function of many life forms to operate the concrete counting and realization of simple sets of up to 3 items. Great research. I am glad we share that as common ground.

Unfortunately, you then totally lose it and disappear into your private misunderstanding. Although counting is universal, Zero is not. I cited the book from 1 to zero before. There is no zero in the natural world.

AGAIN we see confusion between representation and what is represented. If you knew aything at all about the genesis of the symbol zero (and you obviously missed details in the book mentioned) then you would understand the use of various symbols as markers of POTENTIALS/'the hidden' (as such the use of zero covers representation as potentials in bases but comes into its own in application to logic and information processing in general). In ancient times some cultures used a space, other cultures derived symbols for all numbers rather than work of a small alphabet (0 - 9 for decimal) to cover all representations. have you been to the temple in India with the first use of the symbol '0'? It does not look like much until you recognise the event and its consequences.)

In our brains the combination of a focus on magnitudes with sequencing then brough zero into use and brings out the primitive perspective on magnitudes extended through sequencing - thus the Romans etc has symbols for all numbers (powers of 10 etc) whereas the decimal system removes the need for such an overload. IOW the FORMAL development of the symbol '0' required the formalisation of the number line etc and so use of sequencing where such imposed rigid syntax on expressions that allowed for higher precision.

As I have stated on THIS thread, and across the IDM/EIC material, we are using the 0/1 dichotomy as a representation of meanings derived from dichotomisation where we can reduce such to these bit patterns. The neurology is such that the grounding of abstraction is a grounding in analogy/metaphor such that ANY dichotomy is interchangable with any other and so the ability to replace yang/yin or fight/flight etc with 1/0 and in doing so give us access to logic operators where they apply to bit forms of representation.

I am intrigued by some of your prose that indicates some sort of issue with representations and the taking of analogy/metaphor literally.

Your system runs on the zero/one true dichotomy, but that is only in modern mathematics and has no place in any symbolism or system of concrete magnitude. Certainly nothing to do with the I Ching.

The above is an amazing revelation about your thinking Frank - to you if the REPRESENTATION does not exist then what is represented cannot exist - your putting abstraction ahead of the concrete, decalring it primary. LOL! - so the sensation we equate with the label 'love' does not exist until we invent the label! WOW Frank! You do have some form of issue here.

In the context of what is represented by 0/1, The QUALITY associatable with yin covers a quality of potentials and as such what '0' can represent. AGAIN you seem to have severe problems with representation vs what is represented. The SENSATATION of potential/nothing can be represented in many ways but for some obscure reason you cannot understand that; a surprising revelation Frank and so explains your continued problems shown on this thread!

Have you visited Brad's site? there are some links there you may find of high interest/very useful.

 

[fkegan]

If you knew anything at all about the genesis of the symbol zero (and you obviously missed details in the book mentioned) then you would understand the use of various symbols as markers of POTENTIALS/'the hidden' (as such the use of zero covers representation as potentials in bases but comes into its own in application to logic and information processing in general)…

The neurology is such that the grounding of abstraction is a grounding in analogy/metaphor such that ANY dichotomy is interchangeable with any other and so the ability to replace yang/yin or fight/flight etc with 1/0 and in doing so give us access to logic operators where they apply to bit forms of representation.

Hi Elvis,

Well, the speed and intensity with which you snap back like a big spring from any discussion to repeat your same, tired views is impressive. Very good. But as you have noticed I am challenged and limited in many ways.So let's return to go slowly over the points raised.

First, you seem to believe that the mystical roots of the circle and concept of zero can be quickly used to justify your totally contemporary notion of binary computer numbers of zero and one. I disagree totally.

Can you make any discussion on the point without the usual nonsense (I'm right, any not agreeing are ignorant and wrong--all of which sound so much like...[oh, forget about it])...

Similarly, can you make some logical discussion of the "neurology" you cite. I have at length noted the basis in nerve cell wall operation and chemistry that I feel makes all your claims silly...I did not catch your reasoned response.

Thank you for your reasoned comments rather than just ravings...

Frank

 

[elvis]

so your asking me to gentle with you as you do have some comprehension issues - you should explain that to all of the others you try to engage (or more so not).

The issue is grounded in single-context thinking such that as a precaution there is only one context - yours. This is understandable but comes with a price where you end up being alienated/alienating so one must be wary of such (a little forgiving sometimes but open to being reprimanding when need be)

Tell me which of these dichotomies 'make no sense' in that from an IDM and EIC perspective they are all interchangeable as they are categorised abstractions of the single context but CONCRETE realm of our neurological being:

1 / 0
yang / yin
differentiating / integrating
particulars / generals
aspectual / whole
light / dark
actual / potential (possible/necessary)
real / surreal (romantic)
as-interpreted/as-is

Formally moving into hierarchy:

anti-symmetric/symmetric
asymmetric/(anti-symmetric/symmetric)

no need for an essay, just clear differentiation.

 

[fkegan]

Hi Elvis,

One and zero are the basic elements of computer binary math. They form a classical dichotomy. They are symbols related to the technological detail of electric circuits which either have a measurable voltage or not. There isn't really any concrete physical reality that exists like that. All known matter on Planet Earth is composed of atoms with nucleus and electrons. Those electrons sometimes are noticed moving a bit to form voltage. The abstract symbolic dichotomy of 0 and 1 can only approximately be constructed in matter to make computer systems.

yang / yin is a Chinese concept for expressing and describing the ongoing, universal, eternal process of human perception of active Flux or Change. They are only two parts of a single reality best expressed in English (German) as Figure/Ground of Gestalt.

light / dark is a continuum useful in describing to your waiter the exact preparation of your Toast (bread) in a proper English Breakfast.

The rest of your list are imaginative terms of your own without meaning outside of your imagination.

NONE ARE IN ANY WAY CONCRETE, PRACTICAL, EXISTING DICHOTOMIES IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

Dichotomies are abstract symbolic, philosophical niceties...

Frank

 

[elvis]

Hi Elvis,

One and zero are the basic elements of computer binary math. They form a classical dichotomy. They are symbols related to the technological detail of electric circuits which either have a measurable voltage or not.

The binary LANGUAGE is a form of representation that is implemented in computers through a play on voltage of positive negative with a transition phase representing the 'square wave' nature of the dichotomy.

+6V (1) -------- -6V (0)

the '------' maps voltages to the '/' of a dichotomy representation.

Thus there is ALWAYS a voltage present that is then used to REPRESENT binary 1 and binary 0 with the appropriate carry function, microprogramming etc. Once the base line of operation is set it serves as a base interpretable as 'no voltage' etc.

The language can be implemented in other means, such as Babbage's mechanical system or in the threshold firing of a neuron's cell.

Focus on the neuron and we find the play of processing sensory information as AM (amplitude modulation, a WAVE bias) or FM (frequency modulation, a PULSE bias). The AM bias reflects properties of integration of data, the FM bias reflects properties of differentiation of data. We can abstract such into a model of an analogue-to-digital converter and so translation from the parallel to the serial and back:

Different forms of neurotransmitters/neuromodulators play on these capabilities with the basic neurotransmitters being Glutamate (differentiation, expansive, excite) and GABA (integrating, contract, inhibit). Thus the neuromodulator serotonin, for example, will EXCITE GABA and so associate with integrating/contracting dynamics. Move into the neocortex and these become specialised in the form of neuropeptides, very short, specialist, transmitters/modulators:

The abstract symbolic dichotomy of 0 and 1 can only approximately be constructed in matter to make computer systems.

Sure - The process of abstraction is a process of idealisation and covers symmetrisation where 'essentials' are taken from an instance to give us a class of meaning.

We configure a meaning space within which we can create a metaphor that is ideal. The play present spans symmetry/anti-symmetry with asymmetry properties emerging out of the middle in forming an ASYMMETRIC dichotomy from the elements mentioned.

There are two formal definitions of dichotomy - one covers the use of the excluded middle (A/NOT-A) and as such is anti-symmetric and maps a qualitative difference (positive/negative - +1/-1) WITHIN a general sameness (1/1). Another version is pure symmetry and maps two identical elements where the difference is in labels (e.g. 5/V) - ts brings out use of the EQUIVALENCE operator of logic as compared to the Exclusive-OR (XOR) used in the more traditional form of dichotomy.

The other form comes from Botany and defines the nature of branching and as such emergence of one element from the other. This is an ASYMMETRIC dichotomy (others call it a complementary pairing and in logic it can be shown to be a variable TRICHOTOMY in that mediation is present) and includes elements of our 'dichotomy' that are related as aspect/whole. When we apply recursion what we get is an emerging spectrum of the whole.

This format is the one of interest in the focus on language development in the IC etc etc.

yang / yin is a Chinese concept for expressing and describing the ongoing, universal, eternal process of human perception of active Flux or Change. They are only two parts of a single reality best expressed in English (German) as Figure/Ground of Gestalt.

In IDM the focus is on the 'universe of discourse' within which are applied three forms of 'cuts' - symmetric, anti-symmetric, and asymmetric - where such appear to map to basic meaning derivation in our brains.

The figure/ground focus maps to foreground/background, actual/potential etc where such is standard in deriving meaning when combined with the attention system - see refs/comments in:

http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/wavedicho.html

if you understand this mapping then it would be the best one to use in understanding recursion of asymmetric dichotomies

Note that figure/ground covers foreground/background and the processing of such using positive feedback and negative feedback.

Positive feedback covers differentiating where we push others away to bring out, bring to the fore, some particular TO THE EXCLUSION of all else - and so reflecting traits of the XOR operator of our logic.

Negative feedback covers integrating where the background remains 'together' if but poorly differentiated in details. At the same time it covers a symmetric element in the form of 'error correcting' and so 'getting closer to' some perfect image etc. and is related to the equivalence operator of logic (EQV).

So we have a set of qualities we can agree on in that each pairing is interchangeable with the others for interpreting some specific situation:

YANG - YIN
figure - ground
positive feedback - negative feedback
differentiating - integrating
actual (what is 'in my face') - potential (pool of material in the background)

your use of the term 'active flux' covers the IDM use of the control/flux dichotomy where such has been developed in the context of collective formations (see:

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 ) )

In the derivation of the BINARY sequence of the I Ching, through recursion of yang / yin but using 1/0, we derive a set of classes of meanings covering strategies for interpreting foreground/background experiences of reality where the sequence is (111111 to 000000) :

numbers:

Thus if all is ground (000000) then there is no differentiation and we have an integrated 'whole' but vague in details - all is potentials.

OK so far?

 

[fkegan]

Hi Elvis,

I am content to find one totally wrong idea in your work and stay with that. You still have not managed to focus that closely on a single concept or return a logical answer to my questions, but we keep trying.

Thus there is ALWAYS a voltage present that is then used to REPRESENT binary 1 and binary 0 with the appropriate carry function, microprogramming etc. Once the base line of operation is set it serves as a base interpretable as 'no voltage' etc.

The language can be implemented in other means, such as Babbage's mechanical system or in the threshold firing of a neuron's cell.

This will be sufficient grist for our mortal and pestle (your stuff is not worth a mill, just a pinch to grind to dust).

Again, we seem to agree on the eternal reality of positive atomic nuclei being balanced by negative electrons. However, instead of chemistry imagery you keep springing back to technological toys like computers or radios or the like.

Taking just your words, that voltage is always present, then it can only most imperfectly represent the absolute dichotomy of zero and one, which are absolutely not always together and in fact, must be either absolutely present or absent to have meaning at all. This eternal atomic balance of electron and proton is more like the constant flux of the T'ai Chi which only appears to have clear areas of black and white, Yang and Yin. Thus reality and Chinese symbolism are on one page and your modern stuff are only on some other level of imagination.

Let's move on to your threshold firing of the neuron. Not clear what you mean by a neuron's cell. There are neurons or nerve cells, there are cell walls that maintain the separation between K+ ions and Na+ ions that the cell's internal mechanism can increase in concentrations until some variable maximum where the cell wall barrier is breached and diffusion brings equality and balance.

So, accepting we are talking about the same cells if not the same level of technical precision: There is no threshold firing as a static or dichotomy sort of thing. There is a very dynamic system of interaction between incoming synapses to each cell wall doing complex calculations that determine what other neurons firing will result in this one also firing. There is also a regular background of "random" neuron firing like the background radiation of heavy atom nuclear decay, and there is not just threshold firing of neurons, but the rhythm of neuron firings that make a meaningful pattern against the background 'noise' of the ongoing neuron firings that never cease. Again, none of this is in any way related to the concept or practice of dichotomy or the modern math digits of Zero and One.

Frank

 

[elvis]

Frank. If you cannot understand most of what is presented you will focus on some PARTICULAR, regardless of its value in the material, and amplify/discretise such to a level of turning the particular into a whole and then 'discuss'! LOL!

IOW you focus on SAMENESS over DIFFERENCE, you focus on what you KNOW (be it imagined/real, wrong/right, true/false) rather than what you DONT KNOW (as in "Chris I DONT KNOW what you mean by X") since perhaps admitting you dont know something is some sort of issue for you! Thus it is better to hyou to focus on the smallest of knows, amplify it, discretise it, and turn into a whole when in the original text it is little more than a part - metonymy at work Frank. The issue with this sameness bias is it makes all possible of equal probability and as such lacks discernment - it all looks like a dog's breakfast so go for anything! (this covers a symmetric focus overall within which are a diversity of relationships of 'equal' probability due to lack in differentiation, it is all to vague!)

From MY point of view we got as far as some form of consensus on this:

YANG - YIN
figure - ground
positive feedback - negative feedback
differentiating - integrating
actual (what is 'in my face') - potential (pool of material in the background)

YOU tied figure/ground to yang/yin and I then logically added the ties to positive/negative feedback, differentiating/integrating, actual/potential.

Are you now saying that your associations were in fact false?

AS for the 'neuron cell' reference that was my typo, it should have read 'neuron soma' or neuron body' since 'neuron cell' is of course a tautology.

As for neural activity, you seem over-specialised in perspective and so ignoring neural recruitment and synchronisations that get a collective of neurons to increase overall bandwidth in processing data and in doing so, with the synchronisation, the collective work AS IF a single neuron but with large bandwidth. (This covers the implementation of the XOR operator in the brain requires recursion of two+ neurons out of which comes object discretisation and basic memory mechanisms)

For a focus on massively parallel processing of data I suggest a review of such current ideas in CS as http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Confabulation_theory

SO - what is now the issue with:

YANG - YIN
figure - ground
positive feedback - negative feedback
differentiating - integrating
actual (what is 'in my face') - potential (pool of material in the background)?

 

[fkegan]

From MY point of view we got as far as some form of consensus on this:
YANG - YIN
figure - ground
positive feedback - negative feedback
differentiating - integrating
actual (what is 'in my face') - potential (pool of material in the background)

YOU tied figure/ground to yang/yin and I then logically added the ties to positive/negative feedback, differentiating/integrating, actual/potential.

Hi Elvis,

I reduced your quote to the one error I will try to help you with now.
There is no consensus between us, and you have yet to demonstrate any ability to do anything "logically" as yet.

Yes, I tied figure/ground of Gestalt (not any dichotomy but a three-way or 3 dimensional narrative) to Yang and Yin and the T'ai Chi.

You then slipped back into the quicksand swampy muck of your thinking non-process piling anything stated in two words into you misinterpretation of "dichotomy" and other concepts clearly too sophisticated for your capacities.

Frank

 

[elvis]

[Frank] One and zero are the basic elements of computer binary math. They form a classical dichotomy.

[chris] There are two formal definitions of dichotomy - one covers the use of the excluded middle (A/NOT-A) and as such is anti-symmetric and maps a qualitative difference (positive/negative - +1/-1) WITHIN a general sameness (1/1). Another version is pure symmetry and maps two identical elements where the difference is in labels (e.g. 5/V) - ts brings out use of the EQUIVALENCE operator of logic as compared to the Exclusive-OR (XOR) used in the more traditional form of dichotomy.

The other form comes from Botany and defines the nature of branching and as such emergence of one element from the other. This is an ASYMMETRIC dichotomy (others call it a complementary pairing and in logic it can be shown to be a variable TRICHOTOMY in that mediation is present) and includes elements of our 'dichotomy' that are related as aspect/whole. When we apply recursion what we get is an emerging spectrum of the whole.

This format is the one of interest in the focus on language development in the IC etc etc.

and then

[Frank] yang / yin is a Chinese concept for expressing and describing the ongoing, universal, eternal process of human perception of active Flux or Change. They are only two parts of a single reality best expressed in English (German) as Figure/Ground of Gestalt.

[Chris] The figure/ground focus maps to foreground/background, actual/potential etc where such is standard in deriving meaning when combined with the attention system - see refs/comments in:

http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/wavedicho.html

if you understand this mapping then it would be the best one to use in understanding recursion of asymmetric dichotomies

Note that figure/ground covers foreground/background and the processing of such using positive feedback and negative feedback.

Positive feedback covers differentiating where we push others away to bring out, bring to the fore, some particular TO THE EXCLUSION of all else - and so reflecting traits of the XOR operator of our logic.

Negative feedback covers integrating where the background remains 'together' if but poorly differentiated in details. At the same time it covers a symmetric element in the form of 'error correcting' and so 'getting closer to' some perfect image etc. and is related to the equivalence operator of logic (EQV).

So we have a set of qualities we can agree on in that each pairing is interchangeable with the others for interpreting some specific situation:

YANG - YIN
figure - ground
positive feedback - negative feedback
differentiating (D) - integrating (I)
actual (what is 'in my face') - potential (pool of material in the background)

For REPRESENTATION purposes, giving us access to logic operators we can add the 1/0 dichotomy. Thus EACH row is recursable to give is, after three loops, composites of qualities representable in the form of patterns of 0s and 1s:

level 1 - 1,0 (yang, yin OR D,I)
level 2 - 11, 10, 01, 00 (yang+yang, yahg+yin, yin+yang, yin+yin OR DD, DI, ID, II)
level 3 - 111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

Where is there an issue for you in the development of the above?

Perhaps a more traditional Taoist-influenced focus on the IC etc see the original ddiamond site pages with the implicit focus on alchemy :

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao.html - T'ai Chi, Yin/Yang and the concept of Refinement
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao2.html - Wu Chi and Lao Tzu
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao1a.html - forms of yin and yang
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao3.html - the concept of refinement

All of the above reflect a specialist metaphor reflecting the IDM template at work in the unconscious use of universals then labelled to fit that local, speicalist, context.