...life can be translucent

Menu

Quantum Mechanics, the I Ching, and methods of meaning derivation

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Want to see the I Ching?s relationship to particle/wave duality? No problem. The double slit experiments of quantum mechanics reflect recursion of a dichotomy of slit-A/slit-B; in other words the set of POSSIBLE choices, when summed over time, will form into a binary tree ordering. Thus after 6 trials there are 64 POSSIBLE states (2^6) describing what happened in the experiment. ONE of these will be the actualisation, representing the events as they occurred.

This SAME process is used to derive the hexagrams of the I Ching from recursion of yin/yang. However, in deriving the hexagrams/dodecagrams we STOP after 2^6 or 2^12 levels of recursion and assume all potential positions (64 for 2^6, 4096 for 2^12) are actualised ? in other words, there are no repetitions. In the quantum mechanics (QM) experiments that assumption is not made in that actual events allow for electrons/photons etc to end up in the same space and so repeat an event, In our formal mapping of yin/yang we do not allow for these repeats in that we make a map of all POTENTIALS rather than ACTUALS. In other words QM builds up the maps through immediate actualisation and so in an ad hoc manner and open to repetitions. I Ching also creates the map of potentials immediately, idealistically, through mapping all possible states without repetition. (and so a state of ?111111? is mapped into the I Ching (hexagram 01) but not necessarily into the QM maps since that state is ?rare? in reality and so may not even turn-up, be actualised, after a considerable number of trials)

If we allowed for recursion to go on as much as we do with the double slit experiments, what we would end up with would be what we see in the double slit experiments ? a wave interference pattern. This pattern reflects more the WHOLE where all elements within the whole are found to be connected together (that connectedness being a property of method ? recursion). In the ICPlus analysis of the I Ching and of recursion we find this wave nature to be fundamental in that it allows us to use the XOR operator to extract for each hexagram its links with all of the others. In other words the constructive/destructive interferences of yin/yang elicit patterns we objectify and label as ?hexagrams? etc. (see comments in such pages as http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html ) The line meaning material of ICPlus, and so the use of the XOR operator to extract finer details from hexagrams, shows the SAME method of information differentiation/integration at work in the IC as it is in QM. As such, each hexagram is made up of the constructive/destructive interference patterns of sensory information (where our neurology lives in a world of frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes). This fact allows us to extract all of the components in that pattern and so identify each component?s contribution to that pattern.

Reality ?as is? is reflected in the photographic plate used in the QM experiments ? it is a realm of ?AND-ness? ? all is integrated. Reality ?as interpreted? is reflected in the double slits where we see XOR at work. The WHOLE relationship of double-slits to photographic plate is of XOR to AND. This is reflected in our brains as they deal with sensory paradox, but in reverse, from AND to XOR (see examples in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)

The realm of INTERPRETATION of reality is one step removed from reality ?AS IS?. Our consciousness comes out of the realm of interpretation, and in doing so, is innocent enough, and so arrogant enough, to think that its perspective is the ?real? ? it isn?t, it is a derived perspective, an exaggerated, mechanistic, parts oriented, perspective. Reality ?as is? is thus always IMPLIED and only understandable through analysis of the METHODS we use to derive meaning ? recursion of dichotomies. (for more on this relationship of consciousness-nature compared to species-nature and interpretations of QM etc see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html, http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/svector.html, http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/bits.html )

People ?see? QM and Mathematics etc ?in? the I Ching simply because all three systems are METAPHORS for what the brain does in processing information XOR/AND, part/whole dynamics of the neurology ? in other words what is ?seen?, or more so ?intuited? is the set of generic qualities we all use as species members to derive meaning; specialisations will relabel the qualities to generate that specialisation?s unique form of communication - its specialist language but the labels all point to the ONE set of qualities we all use and it is that set that ?resonates? across specialisations to allow for us to use one specialisation as a source of analogy/metaphor for describing another, or some ?new? event/context.

Of special note is the fact that our emotions appear to stem from the recursion of the fight/flight dichotomy and as such reflect the same overall principle at work as described above ? they are an ?integrated whole? made-up of constructive/destructive interference patterns that allow for their complexity as well as simplicity. Their specialisation reflects their development from more primitive, recursion-sourced, qualities where the specialisation allows for the communication of internal states to the environment, and so other life forms. Complexity in communications allows for ?hidden? meanings to be transmitted, innuendo etc becomes an accepted form of communications; we can ?make the point? or ?circle the point?.

When we move to communicating through representations in the form of written/spoken forms so we move to a serial but highly precise perspective but also one removed from reality ?as is?. The success of this perspective can cause us to consider that perspective as ?THE? perspective, as if ?reality? ? it isn?t ? it is OUR reality but a reality one step removed from that to which our species-nature, our primate-ness, has adapted. If we do not include considerations of the XOR/AND dynamics that goes on in our experiencing of reality we can end up in ?gaga?-land for considerable periods of time.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
"The success of this perspective can cause us to consider that perspective as "THE" perspective, as if ?reality? - it isn?t .."

Sure, but this makes me wonder about YOUR perspective. Do you think of it as THE perspective? You sometimes give that impression.
Of course, as long we use concepts we are one or more steps removed from reality as is. It's very easy to forget that, though, when we feel that we are 'close' to reality.
And then gaga-land is not far away. Many philosophers and psychologists (Freud for instance) went wrong in the past, because they fell into the trap of believing that their model was sufficient to explain (nearly) everything.
I think that changing perspectives regularly, looking at things from different angles, is the best way to go.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Martin,

IDM is not a particular perspective as such, it maps out the basic toolkit used in all perspectives where all ontologies are specialist and so metaphors for what the brain deals with - differentiating/integrating. As such IDM is a 'meta-ontology', a meta-perspective, and has its roots in the hardware/firmware of our brains. In THAT context it is 'THE' perspective but of the species, and so universal to be colourless, vague etc when compared to what our consciousness 'needs' to create/differentiate one perspective from another! ;-)

We cannot communicate precisily using blending, bonding, bounding, binding - too general - but knowing that level of generality can aid in (a) refining our specialisations and (b) understanding that our specialisations are not 'the thing' but a representation of 'the thing'.

Being taught fundamentalist perspectives, be they religious or secular, causes those taught to consider those perspectives as 'the territory' rather than as maps/representations. Thus fundamentalism encourages competition where there is no need, sacrifice of life when there is no need etc etc; we are all one species somatically even if our psyches at times suggest otherwise! ;-)

Being taught the general prior to learning the particular, the specialisations, sets a ground that is ultimately cooperative than competitive. - IOW competition is LOCAL, not UNIVERSAL - the level of the species is focused on integration not differentiation.

Nature shows us this in that the long term focus is on energy conservation rather then expenditure; expenditure is short term to learn something/achieve something that over the long term conserves energy.

Our consciousness, our education systems etc, do NOT promote such perspectives since it is only over recent times that we have access to neurosciences etc that show 'in here' operating from the species, and so unconscious, levels.

ICPlus IS a particular perspective in that it grounds itself in IDM and works from that position as it maps out the 'universal' IC.

As such, IDM replaces nothing since it reflects the "AS IS" context of information processing of the species. It sets a foundation that is cooperative more than competitive; competitiveness comes out in the interactions of specialist perspectives (e.g. IC vs ICPlus etc etc) but that process allows for developing clarity in specialist perspectives that can try to 'replace' but over the long term will end up coexisting - IOW I dont see ICPlus 'replacing' local perspectives since it has a focus on universals.

IOW the traditional material is a LOCAL, ad-hoc, actualisation of the universal and as such has local colourings that make it 'organic' but does not reflect the 'full spectrum' of the IC as a universal.

What this thread covers is the ease in which we can map out what is going on with our perspectives once we understand what is seeding them - the originators of QM had no idea what was going on 'in here' and so did the best they could - and so failed to compensate for the XOR/AND dynamics going on in our brains, a dynamic that 'feeds' our ideas, our experimental designs etc. The XOR bias of consciousness (as reflected ultimately in our notion of self vs others/not-self) is the cause of paradox as such and that dynamic is investigatable through analysis of the IC and, in general, IDM.

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
BTW - since recursion fleshes out all categories of meaning, so it fleshes out all perspectives where each hexagram can be considered as a 'ground' and so a perspective from which to live.

The ability to map the MBTI (and emotions etc) to the same set of qualities as hexagrams shows the mapping of universal personality types, and their associated histories, to each hexagram where those types, AS UNIVERSALS, then seed LOCAL interactions where the type is 'completed', made organic, by that interaction.

This gets into the concept of all hexagrams applying to a moment and the moment sorts them into bestfit/worstfit ordering to localise them.

Thus the set of universals we label as hexagrams etc are representations of 'in here' and as such are applicable to any scale of analysis etc.

In our lives as individuals, so a mix of 'comfort zone' context with genetics sorts that 'structure of personality' into bestfit/worstfit order and the culture that 'demands' universalisation of persona will favour sticking to a the 'best fit' by asserting that over the context rather than adapting to the context. This is an 'issue' we need to 'resolve' in some way.

Chris.
 

yly2pg1

visitor
Joined
Dec 29, 1972
Messages
830
Reaction score
0
Reality ?as is? is reflected in the photographic plate used in the QM experiments ? it is a realm of ?AND-ness? ? all is integrated. Reality ?as interpreted? is reflected in the double slits where we see XOR at work. The WHOLE relationship of double-slits to photographic plate is of XOR to AND."

Reality 'as is' is reflected when wisdom arises during meditation - it is a realm of "AND-ness" - all is integrated.

Reality 'as interpreted' is reflected by the dharma (dhamma) where we see XOR at work.

The WHOLE relationship of dharma to wisdom is of XOR to AND.
 

yly2pg1

visitor
Joined
Dec 29, 1972
Messages
830
Reaction score
0
The realm of INTERPRETATION of reality is one step removed from reality ?AS IS?.

Our CONSCIOUSNESS comes out of the realm of interpretation, and in doing so, is ignorant, and so egoistic, to think that its perspective is the ?real? ? it isn?t, it is a derived perspective, an exaggerated, mechanistic, parts oriented, perspective.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
it could be said that all forms of life use their senses, tissues and "bodies" for one single thing--to interpret, design, alter and sustain their own form of reality.

What is it that is not percieved? What is it that is absolute?

Nothing, nothing not as something, but nothing as that which no eye can see, no sense percieve, no substance can touch and no force can disturb, nothing that is at rest, but without peace, nothing that is vacant and unconsuming, nothing that is ubiquitous, but nowhere to be experienced, nothing that is the blank slate a mind uses for its own determined purpose.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
The fundamental aim seems to relate to issues of identity and interactions with context.

That aim is reflected in the feedback dynamics of differentiating/integrating but dynamics that, for us, are sourced in our group nature - the species.

Our species experience is through instincts/habits and so out of conscious awareness; IOW there is a whole realm of dynamics that is not perceived by consciousness other than during/after the event.

As far as the neuron is concerned, and so all neuron-dependent life forms, all that is detectable is defined by the bounds of the methodology used to detect - and that forces a boundary of differentiating/integrating. Anything outside of that will be interpreted from within that - and so we can experience 'paradox' - see comments and examples in:

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

.. and as for a 'blank slate' - no way. From the realm of our unconscious, the realm of our species-nature come the seeds for meaning generation in the form of patterns of differentiating/integrating, object/relationships, WHAT/WHERE - and those patterns get relabelled by LOCAL perspectives into such category systems and the basic universals of the I Ching.

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
What I ment by this:

"IOW there is a whole realm of dynamics that is not perceived by consciousness other than during/after the event."

is that we can find ourselves watching ourselves, or more so our instincts at work and wondering what the hell is going on! ;-)

That watching can lead to 'interesting' interpretations - e.g.

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

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
It could be said that on the deepst level we are not watching ourselves, we are creating ourselves.

The "universe", dare I say even the universe as it is percieved, at its most fundamental level is not made of anything--at the atomic level, matter is nothing but a condensed and "static" form of energy, at the sub atomic level energy becomes even more nonsubstantial than matter, as it exists as a ghostly whisp of potential.

As far as human beings and other nueron dependant life forms are concerned, time and space are the foundation of reality, from time and from space every pattern is constructed, including light, color, motion, force, substance and the like--and yet time and space are essentially nothing, much less anything absolute, when stripped of those things that they support.

The "concoius mind" is nothing but a hollow shadow cast by the unconcious, or "instinct", everything that is manifested in the realm of concious reality is rooted in and built of the aggrigate "material" of the unconcious realm--again that "material" being time and space in its most fundamental description

In some regards it is as if the unverse is a large turbulent cloud of potentials, and psuedo entities--there is no perspective "outside" the cloud, and thus no perception that can be absolute. All minds simply read, in their own way this purest and most extreme form of chaos we call the universe. The mind itself is self interpreted (at the subconcious level) and exists at the surface of reality, just "under" the surface of time and space.

To digress I could give a simple thought experiment:

Let us use the example of an individual strand of hair-in a crude effort to describe the hair in an absolute sense I must first quantitatively bound it and then convey this information to another sentient being of like mind so that the results can be verified--thus confirming to my mind that the perception is absolute.

Immediately we see the problem here as I decide to first perform the simplest measurement--that being to measure the length of the hair--I tack the ends of the hair onto a flat piece of glass and hold a ruler up to it--we already have to make the unconcious assumption that the hair is pulled perfectly taught and even between its two ends--but all this aside an even more fatal problem arises--that of scale and how in quantifying something we must only do so comparitively (the hairs length compared to the scale we are measuring it with) and so any information we gleen in this excersise is not by any means absolute. The more accurate and precise we want our scale to be, the more wild and non linear the hair becomes--soon, as we reach a scale accurate enough to satisfy our quest for an absolute measurement the hair transforms itself into something else entirely--it is a strand of debris loosely tied together by various forces (electromagnetic, strong and weak atomic--as corrupted by gravity) If we are stubborn and inspect the hair more closely and compare it to an even finer scale of measurement the hair continues to diffuse and merge with the background of the glass we tacked it to, until it essentially can no longer be identified as a seperate entitiy. The best we can do then is say that the hair has no apparnt length or dimension, but instead exists within its own nonsubstantive bounds at a self determined scale of reality in the percieving mind, as a simple notion of a hair. To view the hair outside the bounds of the scale that it is indeed a hair is to destroy the notion of the hair entirely.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Brian,

what you are demonstrating here is the wonderful loop that comes out of trying to be too precise is TELLING someone something - better, easier, to SHOW them a level of meaning. Get that agreed upon, and then move to the next, if practical or needed.

When I do XOR-ing with hexagrams etc the focus is on FEELING the result from using the SHOWN method. The LEVEL of communications is held constant where all meaning is determined by that level. Change levels and you change scales and so a different perspective is guaranteed LOCALLY but UNIVERSALS are still recognisable. e.g. on another thread there is the mapping of compressing 64 hexagrams into 27 forms. 8 of those forms map 1:1 with eight of the hexagrams in the 64 - reflecting universals, invarient under transformation (they being PAIRS of:
1,2
19,33
20,34
61,62)

Thus, by identifying the universals that span different perspectives so they act as a common ground from which to work with - and that would include shared methods in measurement processes etc such that they can repeat what you do and get the same results; basic requirment of Science - repeatability.

(In the above we have (a) the sense of PAIRS (a dichotomy) and (b) the sense of yang/yin and (c) the application of yang/yin recursively. Since that LOCAL is a UNIVERSAL so these rules apply at all scales - the concept of self-similar is communicated, as is the concept of the discrete (each of the eight universals) and the continuum (the 19 superpositions). From that comes the notion of context-insensitive (aka universal) and context-sensitive (where the LOCAL extracts one element from a superposition to 'fit' the context)

if you try to jump across too many levels you will get lost and nothing is communicated in the confusion - so there is a feedback process going on as one finds the right level of communications and works up/down from there.

In the realm of relationships, the space in-between 'things', lake/mountain (bonding), wind/thunder (binding), rule. Understand the properties and we start to get a good perspective on the components of relational space and so what is possible or not.

Increase complexity through applying recursion and lake/mountain etc contain 'object' attributes but as parts WITHIN the overall relationships perspective.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Brian, you wrote:

"As far as human beings and other nueron dependant life forms are concerned, time and space are the foundation of reality, from time and from space every pattern is constructed, including light, color, motion, force, substance and the like--and yet time and space are essentially nothing, much less anything absolute, when stripped of those things that they support."

To me the interesting aspect is that time and space for us are not absolutes, light is (or more so its speed). Our brains have adapted STRONGLY to vision and then generalised the characteristics such that our theories etc reflect the absolute of light, the relativity of space and time.

In fact the spacetime continuum at the macro level takes on the form of a Guassian distribution that is reflected at the micro level in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where deltaPosition and deltaMomentum form into a symmetric dichotomy (+1/-1) format.

if we recurse spacetime we can also extract an asymmetric format where space is position oriented and time is momentum oriented such that we find a universal form spanning from the micro to the macro.... and also reflected 'in here' in the form of brain structure and basic differentiating/integrating dynamics.

(differentiating links to space in that the focus is on making a point, asserting a position. Integrating links to time in that the focus is on linking points in a definite order)

if we review E = MC^2 we in fact end up with an equation vaguely like E = S/T where S is space, T is time. This leads into the fine structure constant where there is the indication that 1/137 of our mass is in EM form.

The uncertainty principle that comes out of the symmetric dichotomies indicates there is no 'vaccum' per se - more a soup of energy, be virtual/perculating.

If we move to our brain dynamics that reflects the two forms of dichotomy, the power law form, the asymmetric form, the spectrum form, shows us development of 'small world networks'. The 'wave' nature is manifest in frequency patterns categorisable as:

WHITE noise
PINK noise
BROWN noise

We an express these in sequences of frequencies - as we find in music. White noise correlates to total surprise for each step, IOW there is NO predictability of what happens next and as such this is interpretable as a 'random' network.

Brown noise is where increments may be different but overall the next IS predictable to a degree of being 'boring'. This correlates with the fully integrated network - universals are 'boring' without colour.

The PINK noise is where we MIX surprise (free will) with predictable (determined). This will elicit a small world network.

The I Ching is the determined. Coin tossing is the surprise and out of that relationship comes a small world network, our personal/cultural experiences of the IC expressed LOCALLY.

This pattern is the SAME as that for spacetime of the uncertainty principle of basic cultural dynamics of the species - such that we see it all in the metaphor of the IC - be it in its universal form (ICPLus) or local form (Traditional IC)

Chris.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I am not trying to be obtuse, but essentially there is no distinction one can make between SHOWING and TELLING--in regard to the example of the hair I gave. In both cases there lies the uncertain nature of the way minds interact with each other--there is no way to share any type of information without first having it a) being left behind in time during the transmission or b) having it being corrupted by comparitive language--which is essentially the only language we are capable of using at the moment.

Another example of this problem would be that if we both stood on a hilltop in the middle of a rain forest and looked into the night sky--there you spot a star that seems to grab your attention somehow--even as I am standing right next to you there is absolutely no way you can positively direct my eyes onto the star you are seeing--you can point with your finger, but that would be futile, there are far too many stars adn the sky too complex for such a method, you can try to count how many stars from the moon, or try to use a constellation to direct me there but there is no way to be perfectly certain we both see the same star.

Just as there is no way to gain an absolute description of any entity observed, so there is no way to share such information with another mind in order to prove said information is "absolute", or universal.

I fear that by now it is obvious I am talking more from a particle perspective, and you are speaking more from a conceptual perspective--and yet I do not fully understand how anyone can get past the issue of uncertainty and how it is an inextricable part of every thought the mind creates. Your talk about universal rules both mystifies and intrigues me--the very nature of "quantum" mechanics is that of a universe in which there are no universals or absolutes, but instead narrow bands of reality layered upon each other, each band being a universe in itself so to speak, governed by its own set of rules, and only tangentially "connected" to each other by the nonsubstantive mind interacting with them.

In other words, the universe is completely incoherant and hopelessly segrigated when it is in the state that can only be described as "observed", paradoxically, the very string that provides the loose and minimal amount of interconnectivity possible is the very thing that shatters it in the first place--an observing mind.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
The high precision focus of QM will distort perspectives to focus on NOW. QM itself is a product of our brain dynamics where our technology, our instruments and the design of our experiments, feed into the model our biases determined by senses etc. (and so the paradox of wave/particle duality where there is none other than a clash of XOR vs AND thinking)

If you focus on NOW so all sense of history is lost, but in the dynamics of past-present-future we see the SAME pattern as covered previously re the spacetime dichotomy and the position/momentum dichotomy of uncertainty. These symmetric dichotomies are SINGLE CONTEXT in perspective and as such exclude past/future. But note that the concept of past-present-future maps directly to the network dynamics of fully predictable (past)/unpredictable(future) and the present(NOW) - where we work out of the present and in doing so (a) recognise the past and (b) make aspects of the future reasonably 'predicatable' - IOW out pops small world networks.

The Universal and Traditional ICs reflect this dynamic.

As such there is only HEAVEN/EARTH and in the middle comes us, MAN. The time notion is of past/future, there is no 'now' other than what we create from our mediation position. Thus the realm of NOW is (a) focused on DELAY and (b) focused on high energy expenditure to map 'now' (and so the attempt to maximise bandwidth rather than use time to discover things)

The FULL spectrum of understanding is to cover past-present-future and so recruit history - but history is the source of universals where LOCAL dynamics with reality, when mapped and summed, give us invarient forms across different contexts - universals.

What is indicated here is that the future becomes increasingly predictable as we develop (and that is so when we compare our prediction skills today vs those of 10,000 years ago - not in the sense of predicting 'random' events, but in predicting the outcomes of OUR expressions)

IOW as small work networks develop so the identification of elements from the realm of potentials, the fully integrated network, favours the adoption of, the actualisation of, those potentials as part of 'best practice' - IOW our exteriors may be 'different' but inside we are 'same'.

Chris.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Again I fear I am not fully aware of the perspective you are coming from, but I have two more shiny pennies Id like to throw your way:

I am confused when you say that 1/137th of our mass can be said to be in EM form, I am from a school of thought in which all mass can be converted into EM form at any time, and visa verse--to me e=mc^2 is just an eloquent way of expressing the thought: Mass and energy are the same thing.

In regard to the speed of light--(please understand I am not trying to be insulting or difficult at all, I simply do not fully understand what you are trying to explain)--speed is in NO WAY a value that can be considered absolute--for it is a funtion of time and a function of space, more aptly put and even more damning, speed is a relationship between time and space--time and space being, as we both have said, very very flexible and far from fixed--I would offer to you the notion that rather than c being as many folks say, the speed of light, it is rather the speed of CONCIOUSNESS, or OBSERVATION, and while even this is something that cannot be said to be fixed, it at least resides in a realm in which its variance cannot be observed aka measured.

It is important to make the distinction that light in "empty space" does not travel at a fixed and unchanging speed, rather it is percieved to do so.

Of course I am simply speaking symantics here and belaboring the point, but the entire foundation of c's consistency is based upon the apparancy that light does NOT require a medium of any type in order to "move", that is to say whether in particle form or wave form its motion is self sustained and perpetual--making it absolute--but again its not the light, but the mind observing the light

What all this boils down to for me is that there is no observable entity (including energy, motion or force) that is absolute or governed by any "law" that is absolute--essentially what heisenburg was venting was the idea that we can pin ONE thing down, any one thing we want, and make it absolute, but the cost of this is the variance of everything else related.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Brian,

my point is that our MODELS are influenced by our METHOD in acquiring data. That METHOD is determined by how our senses have developed and how that data is integrated into a whole. Our neurology takes care of the integratation - a neurology with a strong bias to light processing and the use of recursion of dichotomies.

In that recursion we find TWO formats of interpretations, one is single context, symmetric, the other is multi context, asymmetric. These feed into our theories of reality at an unconscious level - e.g. the experience of 'now' as a sense of the eternal is linked physiologically to the reciprocal relationship of bandwidth/time, aka energy/subjective-time experience.

From that physiological dynamic emerges our sense of the ideal, the static, the universal. All of that has an affect on our consciousness as it models reality, and that includes such notions as the uncertainty principle that maps to symmetric dichotomies and all associated properties.

The absolutes are in the form of the ground in which we work - a universe of differentiating/integrating. With that dynamic so universals are identifiable, even if they work for only the life time of the species, to the species they are 'fundamentals'.

Jung's archetypes are LOCAL in form, they have Western 'colourings' etc but apply across all generations.

Differentiating/Integrating are outside of this planet, true universals as such, where all life adapts to the dynamics of that dichotomy.

As such these universals are 'deeper' than Jung etc and also 'vague', more linked to feelings than vision or audition.

In the precision of particle physics, the characteristics of differentiating/integrating are manifest in the generic characteristics of fermions/bosons. IOW despite the LOCAL dynamics there are universal 'forces' at work - patterns of differentiating/integrating - blending, bonding, bounding, and binding ;-)

Universals as such are VAGUE, COLOURLESS, but also come in layers, such that the more local the layer the more colour is in the universal.

Chris.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
haha I am one post behind you here, and apologize for not keeping up.

As you say, the high (yet finite!) precision of QM related observations brings our mind to shove an essentially timeless reality into a segment of time called the present--but I would say the opposite is true--in our everyday world we are doing this, and by, as you noted as well, enhancing our senses and thus opening the floodgate into our minds a bit wider, we quickly discover that nothing makes sense, and so paradox and enigmas reign supreme--what quantum mechanics is, is an attempt to segment our world into "packages" that we can manage and observe seperately, each package then does have its own built in context, not the other way around.

In other words, the classic approach was to say THIS is this, THIS was that, and THIS will be something--at accute levels of observation this leads to ridiculous paradoxes where something is manifest as two, three or an infinate array of things, and so what was done to make sense of it all was to say, "okay, this is this, what was is what was, what will be is what will be, all these things are seperate"--and to go further, what was done to the context of time was also done to context of space.

In quantum physics nothing that is observed is directly linked to any other thing that is observed--I say this because it is acknowledged that the only link between one sovereign entity or event and another is the mind observing them both--regardless of where or when. The biggest problem right now is that there is no way to link one observing mind to another observing mind, and thus be able to observe more then one "thing" at a time, an endeavor that would net an absolute perspective.

I cant seem to understand how you say that these universals are proved to be universals in that they are simply a function or manifestation of the many individual patterns or "locals" from the past. Especially in the context of quantum mechanics--where the pattern of the "past" does not at all absolutely determine the potential of the future.

I guess its like your telling me, "2+2=4" but Im saying "Two what?, Four what?, 2 pennies plus 2 pickles does not equal 4, it equals 2 pennies and 2 pickles" The locals cannot make a bridge between themselves and something else, thus giving rise to a univeral--can they? How?

What really perplexes me is how you can use what happens in little "pockets" to come up with a general rule or constant. I understand logically how this MUST work, but do not see how it can be said to pan out and hold water in "reality".

Its like your telling me that you did 10 sets of 10 coin tosses and then using the results from that you can tell me EXACTLY with 100% certainty(just telling me the odds from an aggrigate of past tosses doesnt really help if I need to know with certainty wheather heads or tails will show) what your 101st and every other subsequent coin toss will net you (heads or tails)--am I misunderstanding you?
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Chris, I guess in all these words I have been trying to ask the question, "Is it possible for a mind to observe itself in action?" After all this is what all of this is about is it not?

Can anyone stare into their own eyes without the benfit of a reflection?

Can anyone stir from their slumber and see to where it is their mind goes as they sleep?

Can anyone see with eyes open only those things that can be seen with eyes closed?

One can take apart a watch and compare the parts to the memory of its whole, thus coming to a full understanding of how the watch works, but who can do the same with their own mind?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Brian, went and had lunch! - to continue....

You wrote:

>
> Posted by Brian (Brian) on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:05 am:
>
> haha I am one post behind you here, and apologize for not keeping up.
>
> As you say, the high (yet finite!) precision of QM related
> observations brings our mind to shove an essentially timeless reality
> into a segment of time called the present--but I would say the
> opposite is true--in our everyday world we are doing this, and by, as
> you noted as well, enhancing our senses and thus opening the floodgate
> into our minds a bit wider, we quickly discover that nothing makes
> sense, and so paradox and enigmas reign supreme--what quantum
> mechanics is, is an attempt to segment our world into "packages" that
> we can manage and observe seperately, each package then does have its
> own built in context, not the other way around.
>

What you are demonstrating here is brain dynamics at work as it XORs, to derive discrete elements (packages) as it attempts to be precise in mapping reality. BUT that precision is one step removed from the reality to which our species-nature, our primate nature, has adapted. The XORing of reality leads to consciousness making false representations in the form of experiment design that ignores the AND element - and so comes up with 'wave/particle' duality issues.

The PARTS perspective that comes out of differentiating will fragment a whole to a degree where all links are broken that make that whole an integrated element of the universe. This realm of integration is unconscious and as such is marginalised when we speculate about reality.

Where integration exists in the discrete is INSIDE where the focus is on precise linkage of parts in the whole, as words to a sentence, sentence to paragraph, paragraph to a chapter, chapter to a book. This focus is on pure SYNTAX where that term reflects the concentration of the generic sense of the SEMANTIC to the focus on POSITION within the hierarchy, where all that matters is that position, that point.

As such, QM is about syntax and in so being is OVER precise, lacking SEMANTICS that make things ORGANIC rather than MECHANISTIC.

This focus gets down to the level of a single context and syntax is rigid to a degree it is not flexible - it maps to Gaussian distributions and reflects +1/-1 dichotomies, symmetric dichotomies - and in so doing maps to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as it does to position/momentum at the macro level of space/time categorisations.

If you review the XOR dynamics I have used in the I Ching you see the WAVE nature of the whole, the integrated system, where to extract a PART, and so to DIFFERENTIATE, I have to use the XOR operator. IOW each hexagram is an integrated system and reflects the same dynamics as any XOR/AND relationship.

This dynamic works at ALL scales since it is the dynamic that reflects our methods of mapping reality for us.

> In other words, the classic approach was to say THIS is this, THIS was
> that, and THIS will be something--at accute levels of observation this
> leads to ridiculous paradoxes

But there are no paradoxes at the realm of our species-nature, the integrated. Our XOR, parts extracting, brain introduces paradox. See examples and comments in:
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html where the oscillations we experience reflects surrendering bandwidth for time to try and resolve the 'paradox'.

Also see http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/TimeParadox.pdf

> where something is manifest as two,
> three or an infinate array of things, and so what was done to make
> sense of it all was to say, "okay, this is this, what was is what was,
> what will be is what will be, all these things are seperate"--and to
> go further, what was done to the context of time was also done to
> context of space.
>
> In quantum physics nothing that is observed is directly linked to any
> other thing that is observed--I say this because it is acknowledged
> that the only link between one sovereign entity or event and another
> is the mind observing them both--regardless of where or when. The
> biggest problem right now is that there is no way to link one
> observing mind to another observing mind, and thus be able to observe
> more then one "thing" at a time, an endeavor that would net an
> absolute perspective.
>

Our brains work off an XOR/AND dynamic where the increasingly precise, in the context of discrete, of a POINT, a POSITION, is XOR. This is a PARTS perspective such that our representations of reality have moved past "AS IS" and into "AS INTERPRETED" - as such the need to conjugate values derived from use of complex mathematics reflects this going past 'as is' and into parts analysis that we then need to put all together to get back to 'as is' in the form of a real number.

As for multi-tasking, we do it all of the time, but have to surrender precision to do it. Thus I can talk about the universe, drive a car, and rummage around in the glove box to find something, all at the same time. ISSUES come when I have to drop these habits/instincts and focus attention of driving - some incident emerges and I have to surrender the multi-tasking to go single task. Once I resolve the issue, I can fall back to multi-task.

There is a GENERAL linkage tool for our species that allows for sharing of information - empathy. It comes out of emotional resonance and works holistically. Emotions as such reflect a 'universal' that allows us to communicate across cultures/tongues etc.

In IDM we map emotions to the trigrams/hexagrams of the I Ching and in doing so show how these symbols operate holistically as well as partial; parallel as well as serial.

Note the 'wave' nature, the focus on a superposition, to elicit meaning. This ties into the development of our intuition through breaking down parts, analysing them, and put them back together in a more differentiated form ;-)

> I cant seem to understand how you say that these universals are proved
> to be universals in that they are simply a function or manifestation
> of the many individual patterns or "locals" from the past. Especially
> in the context of quantum mechanics--where the pattern of the "past"
> does not at all absolutely determine the potential of the future.
>

Which is how it is that QM is 'missing' things. As covered in the first post to this thread, the experimental DESIGN of QM duality issues stems from trying to assert that position of precision as if one shared across the universe. It isn?t. That is not 'reality' but a perspective derived from moving from our primate state of "AS IS" to our consciousness state of "AS INTERPRETED". In that movement, if you do not recognise it as an exaggeration from a base, if you try to see it as independent of primateness, then you will create paradox due to the confusion across levels of precision - through mixing part/whole relationships.


> I guess its like your telling me, "2+2=4" but Im saying "Two what?,
> Four what?, 2 pennies plus 2 pickles does not equal 4, it equals 2
> pennies and 2 pickles" The locals cannot make a bridge between
> themselves and something else, thus giving rise to a univeral--can
> they? How?
>

The I Ching, or more so my format of it as a universal, is in the same ball park as pure mathematics - a universal. As such we are dealing with tools that have their roots in general object/relationship, aka differentiating/integrating, dynamics.

In the context of networks, so these are complete, integrated but vague since they lack PARTICULAR context. Mixing the universal, the totally predictable, with the totally unpredictable, elicits small world network, and so LOCAL, perspectives. Thus pure mathematics becomes applied, universal I Ching becomes Traditional I Ching.

If you do not have knowledge of the universal to start with, and so REJECT the 'past', then you work in an ad hoc manner, with 'unusual' interpretations of what is going on, as you try and build a model/hypothesis. After a while so specialisations will start to show the SAME patterns of meanings, but different labels. What is happening? We are starting to uncover the universals at work THROUGH our specialisations.

Thus in the ordering of:

Universal(regular, predictable) - small world - local(random, unpredictable)

Our consciousness develops in the small world as if by 'magic' as we interact with the local, the 'random' - unaware of the universals. BUT, as we SUM these small worlds, be they an individual's interpretation of reality, or that of a specialist discipline, we start to find constants - the universal 'shinning through' - and for us that is patterns of differentiating/integrating.

> What really perplexes me is how you can use what happens in little
> "pockets" to come up with a general rule or constant. I understand
> logically how this MUST work, but do not see how it can be said to pan
> out and hold water in "reality".
>

Consider each pocket as a small world network. Convert each to a graph format and overlay each graph. You will detect patterns that will translate across all of these small worlds without change. These are universals. We are moving from particular to general, and so discovering the general. From that discovery we can focus on the general, as pure mathematics reflects the working on mathematics in general - as the universal I Ching reflects working on the IC in general (using tools of logic, understanding of recursion etc. THAT understanding is in the form of IDM, where the PARTICULARS of empirical research into neurology gives us invariant patterns across those particulars and so showing universals at work - ie dynamics of differentiating/integrating)


> Its like your telling me that you did 10 sets of 10 coin tosses and
> then using the results from that you can tell me EXACTLY with 100%
> certainty(just telling me the odds from an aggrigate of past tosses
> doesnt really help if I need to know with certainty wheather heads or
> tails will show) what your 101st and every other subsequent coin toss
> will net you (heads or tails)--am I misunderstanding you?
>
>

Given a universal, all is predictable structurally and in general behaviour. Exposed to reality 'as is', and so to the unpredictable, adaptations take place. The realm of those adaptations comes out of the MIDDLE of the predictable/unpredictable dichotomy and give us a range of POTENTIAL states with one of them actualised - the small world network - aka binary sequence of the universal I Ching expressed through local colourings - and so the 'traditional' I Ching.

The point re understanding universals is that the more we understand them the more 'attractive' they become as GUIDES in forming the 'small world network'. The better our predictions come so the more we head towards becoming universals ourselves! (or more so the FOCUS on such - be it valid or delusion)

As to your last post (we are crossing!):

We can see within from the perspective of our species-nature and so our universal - blending, bonding, bounding, and binding.

As for sleeping, different parts shut down over time time spans. Thus "REM" sleep etc reflects a loss in high precision that is noticable when we compare our dreams to our awake state.

This 'lack' in precision, in intense syntax implementation takes us into the realm of the 'vague', approximates mixed with some 'points' etc etc., dreams are colourful, sometimes vividly so, but also lacking in 'logic' - very metaphoric, analogous etc.

Another form of dreaming reflects a lack in 'novel' associations and more of a focus on everyday events - all in sequence. These are more 'left brained', logical etc. due to the imposition of syntax.

As for eyes open/closed, brain makes no distinction. That is how our imagination can do what it does, that is how mimicry etc works well even if imagined. Consciousness is the agent of mediation here.

Our genetics give us the 'regular' network, all is predictable (instincts at work). Nature works as the 'random' element and out of that interaction of nurture/nature comes us - small world networks. BUT, with technology so we discover more and more about our species nature and so can predict things considered not predictable in the past - in doing so we move towards the universal (and so we get into improving on it through generic engineering etc!)


Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Brian,

You asked:
>
> Chris, I guess in all these words I have been trying to ask the
> question, "Is it possible for a mind to observe itself in action?"
> After all this is what all of this is about is it not?
>

We can watch our instincts/habits in action and in so doing, especially for habits, observe our historic mind in action.

We can use this feedback process to dismantle and/or build-up/refine instincts/habits using basic trial and error. (hex 18 covers this where to avoid corruption (neglect etc) so continuous feedback is required prior to letting something run on its own)

BUT, given an understanding of the universals present in all of us as neuron-dependent life forms, so we can refine the actions of our minds, perfect them to perform 'optimally' in any context and in so doing fall back on trusting our instincts/habits, going with the flow 'easily' rather than having to keep the mind active as it fights the context.

From the universal I Ching perspective, the full spectrum is the set of POSSIBLE actions. Understanding more details about them can aid when a context comes along that pushes those particular buttons; we conserve energy in only having to focus on the local dynamics since they are recognisable as a variation on some universal theme.


> Can anyone stare into their own eyes without the benfit of a
> reflection?
>

:) if the mirror is only half-silvered, this is possible ;-)

Chris (the rest covered in previous email)
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
An additional, more speculative, point:

You wrote:

> The
> biggest problem right now is that there is no way to link one
> observing mind to another observing mind, and thus be able to observe
> more then one "thing" at a time, an endeavor that would net an
> absolute perspective.
>

There is an interesting aspect of this and it deals with purity. There is a rule that two cannot share the same space, but no rule saying one cannot be it two places at the same time! We see manifestations of this in such areas as:

(1) Identical twin research
(2) Universal cell research (aka cancer cells where they have lost their sense of particular - could also be in stem cells but no literature to date)
(3) Old forms of radio crystal creations

This area reflects high correlations of entities to a degree where it is as if one is in two places at the same time. Note that this, overall, focuses on SAMENESS and is reflectable in physics where the states of photons reflect sameness and so correlations across distances that 'break' speed-of-light issues.

The mechanisms involved fall off at a rate of 1/2^n and so very quickly; as such, use of these for communications would be along statistical grounds rather than direct 1:1 communications. What is noteworthy is this is how empathy works where we 'resonate'.

This focus on empathy etc indicates another realm of this form of communications, identical mind development - IOW identical training allows for the prediction of actions of another regardless of distance of separation.

Chris.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Chris, I hope you had a pleasant lunch.

I apologize if I am sounding like a broken record but:

It is my understanding that there is no "AS IS" state in the universe, all observable "things" are by defination in the "AS INTERPRETED" state you mention. EVEN at this "AND" or subconcious coherent brain "mode" you speak of.

I can understand the general difference between the XOR/AND operations, and I understand how they relate to each other now, but I feel it is not possible to assert that the XOR operations are universally bound together and made coherant, outside the context of any single mind, by these AND states/funtions--

In GENERAL terms I can see how one COULD make this assertion, but (and this is a point you have alluded to as well) when we really scrutinize whats going on (XOR right?) there are subtle differences, differences so subtle they almost dont have any impact at first, differences that do however, over time, or collectively, yield the destruction of the validity of any proposed universal.

The metaphor you give regarding words, sentances, paragraphs and syntax is very appropriate--but I feel you do not go far enough in this analogy and thus include the notion that yes, there are common "rules" governing how words are to be used, what latant meanings they hold, and how they can be put together to form or transmit thoughts more complex then the sum of their total--BUT this does not mean these words, even when used or read, in accordance with the universal laws, will be capable of exactly conveying one minds thought to another--To compound these differences and staying well within the bounds of this metaphor, I say that certainly there are many languages, the differences between german and english are great on the surface, but only very minute and subtle at their respective cores--yet the result is if I only speak english I cant understand german and cannot directly connect with a german thought trail.

One could say I could learn german--but unfortunately that leaves the boundary of the metaphor in some ways. A mind, within the bounds of this metaphor, can only speak one language.

The problem I still have is that the things your saying here are confined to what can be described as "human experience" (to refer to the metaphor again ENGLISH), in this, this body of thought is by its own admission the universals spoken of here are NOT universal an an absolute sense, as what is failed to be taken into account are the other types of minds, such as a birds, or a snakes for example (german and latin using the metaphor again)--it seems to be neglecting the wider array of methods out there used by living entities to construct reality and interpret it from the chaos of this universe (the blank slate) and focus too narrowly on human contexts, all while implying that the universals used in human contexts are ABSOLUTE universals, this is not correct to me--

in short I would say your use of the term universal, is in fact a LOCALIZED universal to be applied only to HUMAN operations and NOT encompassing other types of minds--

am I coming closer to identifying what your saying here or am I just way off base?

In regard to the comments you make on multitasking, I would certainly agree, but would go further to say that the practice of meditation and the core "goal" of the I Ching is to get ones mind to stop multitasking, settle down and focus sharply on a singularity of thought--and do so in a way that nothing is lost or left behind--in other words seeing the entire scope of ones experience/reality/surroundings as a single thing, not as many parts that must be chased down and scrutinized. In essence the I ching is not a compartimentilized yet unified whole that justifies any distinction to be made between this "XOR" and "AND".

As a consequence of this I tend to view the 64 gua of the I Ching not as 64 independant and inter related parts, but instead as 64 faces or sides of a single crystal. The goal is to be able to gain a perspective in which all the sides are seen at once--without turning it around in your hands--the best place to find that perspective, in which all sides are seen simultaneously, is to go first go into the crystal, and then, once inside, find it is possible to become the crystal.

Only by becoming can an absolute perspective be attained--for in doing so "we" come to occupy a situation or entity rather than simply experience it as if we were external or divorced from it.

Other cultures manifested this notion as well--however these manifestations, although at thier core seemingly identical to the I Ching, are very different by the time you get to the surface--empithetic shaman tried to not only emulate but become their prey in the san culture of africa, several native american cultures felt that in eating their prey they were paying to it the highest respect they could give to it, some south american cultures took this further and cannabilized thier enemies, or sacrificed people to their gods as most worthy treasures.

Regarding some of your comments relating to quantum mechanics, initially, up until the late 1980's I think, folks did just as you stated--they abberated and corrupted every aspect of the reality they wished to explain and understand with the very nature of the experiments they designed to test and observe the same--HOWEVER, a newer line of thought/philosophy has begun to formally come into existence to address this problem--that being to design experiments with the inherient goal of directly involving, and not just acknowledging the observer--in essence the act of observing becomes the act of participating.

On a macroscopic scale I could give an example:

A man decides to study ants, and so he buys an ant farm, sets it up on his dinning room table and spends many hours every day watchign what goes on inside--he then writes a book outlining his observations. The book sells well, but invariably, as more and more people read it someone says, "Hey wait!, this is a good book, but it does not describe the behavior of ants, it describes the behavior of ants confined in a plastic box on a dinning room table"

And so the man sets out to improve his work and write another book about ants, only this time he goes into the rain forest and digs out a small glass walled room adjacent to a large ant colony--he spends several weeks in the room studying the ants as they behanve in the ground, finds several notable differences and writes another book, feeling confident he now has accounted for the way ants truely behave--but again, one of his readers comes to this ant expert saying, "How do we know your room and your presence did not disturb the ants and thus alter their behavior in order to accomodate your presence?". The author whinces a bit and admits that he cannot say for sure if the ants were in some way reacting to him or not, and so he sets out again to find a way to observe and give an accurate account of how it is ants TRUELY behave in their natural state. After much thought and effort he submits to the notion there is no way to do this--it is impossible, even if he used cameras, cameras 100 times smaller then the ant could still disturb them, a spy satallite peering down from space will still alter their behavior--but how! He realizes the cameras might make a sound the ants can hear, or cause slight anomolies in the EM field local to the ants that they would not recognize and respond to, a spy sattalite must be launched into space with a rocket, with this he realizes the entire technological history and evolution of mankind that lead to the ability to launch a sattalite into orbit has definately impacted the ants--he then considers it is not only his own presence affecting and altering the behavior of the ants, but also the presence of thunder, rain and birds--indeed there is no way to make a sterile observation of the ants at all! Instead the man is forced to write a book entitled,"The behavior of ants as affected by the tapestry they live in." In order to write this new book the man studied how different geological localities strongly impacted the nature and development of ants and that no living thing is strictly governed by any existing universal, but is instead slightly altered to fit perfectly into the texture of its locality. Any observer MUST eventually submit to the truth that in observing the observer BECOMES not only part of the locality, but in essence part of the entity being observed as well.


With a heavy heart I must admit I have only responded to part of the first posting you submitted in responce to my last one--I have to get some work done now, but will read the rest of what you said.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Brian,

went home, had a sleep, and now its saturday 1.49pm here ;-)

to continue....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I Ching Community Discussion Forum
> [mailto:support@onlineClarity.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2005 3:49 AM
> To: chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
> Subject: Quantum Mechanics, the I Ching, and methods of meaning
> derivation
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I Ching Community Discussion Forum: Friends' Area: Quantum
> Mechanics, the I Ching, and methods of meaning derivation
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Posted by Brian (Brian) on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:49 pm:
>
> Chris, I hope you had a pleasant lunch.
>
> I apologize if I am sounding like a broken record but:
>
> It is my understanding that there is no "AS IS" state in the universe,
> all observable "things" are by defination in the "AS INTERPRETED"
> state you mention. EVEN at this "AND" or subconcious coherent brain
> "mode" you speak of.
>

The neurology suggests otherwise. The "AND" end of the dimension of precision that comes out of recursing XOR/AND does not exaggerate sensations, they all come in "AS IS". That position is of our species-nature and its direct interface with 'out there'. The realm of XOR reflects varying degrees in precision on extract parts from that "AS IS", to EXAGGERATE the 'new' through increasing some bits, suppressing other bits (frontal lobes associate with the XOR end of the dimension and the frontal lobes act to DELAY information, and as such reflect dynamics of consciousness as a mediating agent); and so the realm of "AS INTERPRETED".

If we use the IC to analyse the dichotomy of as-is/as-interpreted one can get an idea of what is going on where "AS IS"
is the realm of instincts, stimulus/response, yin. Information 'at odds' with the available set of instincts/habits elicit a move to "AS INTERPRETED", yang, and that includes any need to LABEL something where the label is a universal (e.g. "HOUSE") for more on this use of the IC see later.

Our conscious experience, and associated models of reality that come out of that experience, reflect EXAGGERATIONS of reality, IDEALISATIONS, universals formation, that are beneficial once understood and integrated back into our instincts/habits realm; but to live at that level of idealisation is very energy expending, potentially delusional, and overall 'unhealthy' due to its over-differentiation of 'things' that instigate "packet" states that compete with each other to assert 'self'. This competitive state is not necessary all of the time, where its replacement focus is not 'natural', more analytic than dialectic - more a LOCAL focus, expending of energy, not a universal focus, conservation of energy.

The 'ad hoc' development of "AS IS" to "AS INTERPRETED" to "AS IS (refined)" reflects a supply of universals in the form of genes interacting with 'random' reality (the unpredictable). Over time so the genetics develops to a level of refinement where 'out there' is less and less 'random', where even the 'random' is predictable statistically. Over time out pops patterns in our LOCAL, small world network adaptations, that indicate UNIVERSALS 'out there' that we have internalised aspects of in our LOCAL development. Science in its identification of universals will SUM the small world networks and discover the patterns of the universals reflected in neurology (and so spanning other life forms BEFORE us)

Thus we work off our basic hypothesis/model of reality that is the sum of our instincts and develop from there in an ad hoc manner to create our abstract models; our specialisations, our 'as interpreted'.

As we develop so we start to get an inkling of what those instincts reflect but from a very generic level. THAT is where IDM comes in in that there is enough material in the research of neurosciences to show the basic structure of information processing and out pops the universal dichotomy of differentiating/integrating.

If we apply recursion to that dichotomy we come up with a template of patterns reflected across ALL specialisations where the differences are in the LABELS, the language, associated with the specialist perspective - we HAVE to label since we use ONE set of generic qualities for describe 'all there is' and the more universals-oriented we get so the more words are required to describe specialist contexts! Thus the ONE set of qualities is relabelled for each novel context - the labels allow us to derive difference from sameness and reflect a development path from sameness to difference.

> I can understand the general difference between the XOR/AND
> operations, and I understand how they relate to each other now, but I
> feel it is not possible to assert that the XOR operations are
> universally bound together and made coherant, outside the context of
> any single mind, by these AND states/funtions--
>

The core focus at all levels of analysis/synthesis etc is in the dynamics of differentiating/integrating (discrete/continuous, particles/waves, point/field, part/whole etc). Thermodynamically we deal with the dichotomy of far-fro-equilibrium/equilibrium, unstable/stable. What this does is map the "AS IS" to a realm dominated by "AND" - all linked together, all is in some form of 'balance'. This is all 'yin' biased (hexagrams that covers various actualisations of this 'stabilising' focus are 02, 15, 07, 46, 24, 36, 19, 11) The realm of 'yang', the more extremes of "AS INTERPRETED" are expressed in hexagrams of 01, 10, 13, 25, 44, 28, 06, 33, 12.

if we order the hexagrams in binary order then the realm on the border of 000000 (02) is the realm of the unconscious, instinctive, and as such a SET of POTENTIALS. Consciousness can extract each of those potentials by introducing energy - yang - where the fullest actualisation at the level of 64 hexagrams is 111111 (01).

The blending, bonding, bounding, binding categories of IDM, categories derived from analysis of differentiating/integrating, sets up qualities of the "Universal" I Ching - the totally integrated, and so complete whole, of the IC. We have been unaware of that perspective in that our exposure has been to a LOCAL version of this, a small world network version, the traditional IC of Ancient China.

The properties and methods of the Universal IC have only become identifiable from analysis of HOW we as a SPECIES derive meaning in general; and that information has become only available in recent times (last 40 years or so, with most precision coming out in the last 15 or less years).

The ability to link patterns of mindless differentiating/integrating to adapting to those patterns in information flow through neurology, and from there to categorisations, concept formations, and on into symbols and metaphors and a MINDFUL state, indicated we are onto a 'true' universal derived from evolution. The GROUND state is an undifferentiated state, a focus on AND more than XOR. LOCAL dynamics elicit XOR states, high energy expenditures that over the long run will 'calm down' to assert 'equilibrium' - this is the UNIVERSEs path; perfect order, no highs, no lows - heat death; entropy rules.

This pattern of XOR/AND dynamics at the level of the universe is reflected in the success of the neuron and its ability to REFLECT that dynamic in axon/dendrite processes where aggregates of neurons form into nuclei/networks that act AS IF a neuron - all the way up to our hemispheres in our brains and out into the properties and methods of our collectives/species.

> In GENERAL terms I can see how one COULD make this assertion, but (and
> this is a point you have alluded to as well) when we really scrutinize
> whats going on (XOR right?) there are subtle differences, differences
> so subtle they almost dont have any impact at first, differences that
> do however, over time, or collectively, yield the destruction of the
> validity of any proposed universal.
>

;-) the only destruction of differentiating/integrating is when all has been differentiated and things start to cool to a level of perfect equilibrium (the dichotomy is ASYMMETRIC and so the differentiating comes out of the integrating, XOR comes out of AND) - we wont be around then since we are opportunists and need the 'middle' to work, to exploit differentiations, to exploit highs/lows.

What is indicated here is the HIERARCHY that forms in XOR/AND dynamics such that we get LOCAL universals (e.g. a local dialect is a form of universal for the locals!) and they survive for the length of the level's survival (allowing for a level to be 're-furbished' - gets into the realm of semiotics where, using Peirce's categories, so there is WITHIN a level a meaning dynamic of a sign from icon to index to symbol. 'what you see is what you get' to an increase in a need to see 'behind' the symbol.

The hierarchy is displayed, as is the XOR/AND dynamics across levels, in Chinese perspectives such as:

Differentiating/Integrating

T'ai Chi / wu Chi (general, semantics)
Yi Chi / T'ai Chi
Yin&Yang / Yi Chi
YinXORYang / Yin&Yang
YangIMPYin / YinXORYang
Yang, Yin / YangIMPYin (particular, syntax)

With the adaptation of neuron to 'out there', and the re-labelling of generic qualities to fit local contexts, so we, as a neuron-dependent species reflect 'out there' - all the way back to the beginnings of the universe (see comments in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html) - qualifying that IDM maps out the POTENTIALS usable in describing reality.

> The metaphor you give regarding words, sentances, paragraphs and
> syntax is very appropriate--but I feel you do not go far enough in
> this analogy and thus include the notion that yes, there are common
> "rules" governing how words are to be used, what latant meanings they
> hold, and how they can be put together to form or transmit thoughts
> more complex then the sum of their total--BUT this does not mean these
> words, even when used or read, in accordance with the universal laws,
> will be capable of exactly conveying one minds thought to another--To
> compound these differences and staying well within the bounds of this
> metaphor, I say that certainly there are many languages, the
> differences between german and english are great on the surface, but
> only very minute and subtle at their respective cores--yet the result
> is if I only speak english I cant understand german and cannot
> directly connect with a german thought trail.
>

..but IDM covers this in that each language you speak of is a specialist perspective. Nouns and verbs did not come out of the blue, they come out of qualities associated with differentiating(nouns)/integrating(verbs) - these are universals. LOCAL conditions will then give us specialist languages such as English/German etc (which have more generic roots in older languages). The success of a language is reflected in its adaptability - e.g. English comes with two main 'flavours' sources in OldEnglish and OldNorse and OldEnglish contains within IT elements of Latin and French etc. English then becomes a universal to the population and on into those other parts of the world colonised by the English - and then picks up local elements as it feeds into local languages (something strongly fought against by the French! ;-))

The attraction of English is in its XOR nature, EVERYTHING requires a label such that it appears to be overloaded with verbs (as does German if I recall this discussion before on this list somewhere!). The making of a universal is where there is no context-sensitive requirement; there is no 'collapsing the wave' required. The problem with this is that it requires extremes in education, and so energy expenditure, to ensure 'precision' in communications and over the long run the language can be 'dumbed-down', averaged-out to be more 'universal'.

The I Ching reflects a level of communications that is (a) based on universals but (b) allows for superpositions, and so context-sensitive interpretations - e.g. yin is 'darkness' in its opposition to 'light', but nurturing, 'female', in its cooperation with 'male'. IOW the IC formalises the differentiate/integrate 'pair' in the form of QUALITIES as the letters rather than a sequence of sounds. As such the IC is more 'immediate'. more parallel, than sound, but is less precise than the serial (we need the serial to fill in the details etc) where it moves past the pairs; the gerund 'rules' overall but is marginalised in discussion of English etc where the dual nature is rejected for a more 'precise' perspective if NOUN XOR VERB etc.

The advantage of emotions and so such tools as the IC is in their universal form of communciations; LOCAL languages then form to express those emotions in the form of words associated with feelings - this is more 'precise' in expression but also requires training over some years to refine expressions ( I may not speak German but I can express my anger/joy about something with no need to learn the language - the issue is in the PRECISION involved in spoken/written communications)


> One could say I could learn german--but unfortunately that leaves the
> boundary of the metaphor in some ways. A mind, within the bounds of
> this metaphor, can only speak one language.
>

;-) differentiating/integrating - blending, bonding, bounding, and binding.


> The problem I still have is that the things your saying here are
> confined to what can be described as "human experience" (to refer to
> the metaphor again ENGLISH), in this, this body of thought is by its
> own admission the universals spoken of here are NOT universal an an
> absolute sense, as what is failed to be taken into account are the
> other types of minds, such as a birds, or a snakes for example (german
> and latin using the metaphor again)--it seems to be neglecting the
> wider array of methods out there used by living entities to construct
> reality and interpret it from the chaos of this universe (the blank
> slate) and focus too narrowly on human contexts, all while implying
> that the universals used in human contexts are ABSOLUTE universals,
> this is not correct to me--
>

The IDM research is focused on the neuron. As such the work has covered all neuron-dependent life forms. The tiny zebra fish makes the SAME distinctions, and so LATERISATIONS, in its 'brain' as we do in ours - LEFT side is the KNOWN (Labelled etc) RIGHT side is the UNKNOWN (unlabelled, approximate etc).

THERE IS NO BLANK SLATE (or if there was it has 'grown up' and become formatted with patterns of differentiating/integrating). Have a look at such texts as:

Prete, F.R.,(Ed)(2004)"Complex Worlds from Simpler Nervous Systems" MITP (e.g cockroach etc)

The CORE dynamic in the neurology is on differentiating/integrating and THAT serves as a universal. Recurse the dichotomy and eventually you will reach a level where the FINITE appears as a CONTINUUM and so 'infinite'; all differentiations have been made and our senses/pragmatism takes us no further - we can no longer resolve differences to go further.

In OUR brains the sophistication has reached a level where we focus on use of, in creation of, universals. (e.g. handedness is humans works more as a universal than in other life forms where the handedness is more context-sensitive. This is a property of PRECISION development where one hemisphere operates as the agent of precision - in speech and action).

Our creation of universals is in the form of labels we use to communicate; but the methodologies in this focus on universalisations stems from the dynamics of differentiating/integrating, something 'out there' ;-)


> in short I would say your use of the term universal, is in fact a
> LOCALIZED universal to be applied only to HUMAN operations and NOT
> encompassing other types of minds--
>

No. The material applies AT LEAST to all neuron-dependent life forms. The dynamics of endocrine systems indicates the same general focus on patterns of differentiating/integrating and so takes the material into alternative information processing systems, but the IDM focus is on how meaning is derived from the neuron and how, once the METHOD is identified, how that method can be implemented in other ways (e.g. silicon etc)

> am I coming closer to identifying what your saying here or am I just
> way off base?
>

too local ;-) go wider.

> In regard to the comments you make on multitasking, I would certainly
> agree, but would go further to say that the practice of meditation and
> the core "goal" of the I Ching is to get ones mind to stop
> multitasking, settle down and focus sharply on a singularity of
> thought--and do so in a way that nothing is lost or left behind--in
> other words seeing the entire scope of ones
> experience/reality/surroundings as a single thing, not as many parts
> that must be chased down and scrutinized. In essence the I ching is
> not a compartimentilized yet unified whole that justifies any
> distinction to be made between this "XOR" and "AND".
>

The 'idea' with the IC is that it is a WHOLE. The hexagrams as such are XORed from that whole. By refined understanding of those parts so they get re-integrated into the WHOLE and we can work off our intuitions. we cannot consciously 'see the entire scope', that is outside of the LOCAL range of our FM thinking (Frequency Modulation is VERY clear but notoriously short ranged). Through summing the parts we fill in the dots of the universal we are dealing with (and so each part is a 'small world network') and on doing so move to INTUITING the WHOLE, being able to let it 'drive' universally and our consciousness differentiate local 'nuances'.

> As a consequence of this I tend to view the 64 gua of the I Ching not
> as 64 independant and inter related parts, but instead as 64 faces or
> sides of a single crystal.

Sure - but go deeper. Move to the level of dodecahedron at least (equiv to hexagrams with changing lines = 4096 dodecagrams - 2^12) See http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/The%20Dodecahedron.htm

> The goal is to be able to gain a
> perspective in which all the sides are seen at once--without turning
> it around in your hands--the best place to find that perspective, in
> which all sides are seen simultaneously, is to go first go into the
> crystal, and then, once inside, find it is possible to become the
> crystal.
>

What the XOR material shows is that each hexagram has all the others as aspects. If you use that material you can get a better idea of the full spectrum of each hexagram; the traditonal material is 'limited' in this area re immediate understanding; it is too 'ad hoc', too 'local', to flesh out the generic, universal, patterns, the STRUCTURE of the IC (see the link http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html)

> Only by becoming can an absolute perspective be attained--for in doing
> so "we" come to occupy a situation or entity rather than simply
> experience it as if we were external or divorced from it.
>

the ICPlus focus is on understanding by FEELING the core qualities we all use as a species to derive/process meaning. THEN learn specialisations and so there is a universal as a ground out of which comes specialisations. If yuo start off from a specialist perspective you will work 'ad hoc' too much.

> Other cultures manifested this notion as well--however these
> manifestations, although at thier core seemingly identical to the I
> Ching, are very different by the time you get to the
> surface--empithetic shaman tried to not only emulate but become their
> prey in the san culture of africa, several native american cultures
> felt that in eating their prey they were paying to it the highest
> respect they could give to it, some south american cultures took this
> further and cannabilized thier enemies, or sacrificed people to their
> gods as most worthy treasures.
>

I am not focused on the realm of specialisations, the LOCAL, more on fleshing-out the general and so demonstrating the focus of specialist perspectives being metaphors/analogies rather than to be taken literally. What you describe above is a classic example of metaphors being taken literally, of working from an 'ad hoc' level and so failing to identify the 'drives' etc and in doing so coming up with 'interesting' interpretations of events! (as covered in my page on the idea of angels etc http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html)


> Regarding some of your comments relating to quantum mechanics,
> initially, up until the late 1980's I think, folks did just as you
> stated--they abberated and corrupted every aspect of the reality they
> wished to explain and understand with the very nature of the
> experiments they designed to test and observe the same--HOWEVER, a
> newer line of thought/philosophy has begun to formally come into
> existence to address this problem--that being to design experiments
> with the inherient goal of directly involving, and not just
> acknowledging the observer--in essence the act of observing becomes
> the act of participating.
>

See http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html - the issues in interpretations of QM reflect a lack of understanding re XOR/AND dynamics and so not understanding the consequences of METHODOLOGY and how it is the METHOD that defines all meaning. Once you understand XOR/AND dynamics there are no 'issues' with QM interpretations.

Chris.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Admittably Im a bit dense, but I dont mind if you dont mind--

There are many thinigs Id like to say in response to all this that you have last said--but I will limit myself to one question:

Regarding the neuron, how can they be universal in their design and funtion--how can it be as generic as you imply? A zebra fishes neuorons are not the same as ours are they? My question is not rhetorical, Im asking because I dont know if they are or not.

IF they have been demonstrated to be physically the same, in that they are encoded consistently in dna across species for example, does that translate into the fact that they are identical in function and design across species lines as you suggest as well?

Does similair form, even identical form assert the same for function?

Assuming a neuron is to neuron based life forms what a stem cell is to a single specimen of life, it is still not possible to say they function the same in us as they do in whales or zebra fish.

What I mean by all this is that the operation and functioning of any given neuron depends completly upon what is ultmiately stimulating it--more specifically the source of the stimulation

If a batfish is colorblind, will its neurons work within the same framework ours do? If a bat is blind, and if a spider is deaf, and if a snake is both deaf and blind, will all their neurons work the same way--how? They are not processing or "going on" the same information--a snake and spiders world is built around vibration, a bumble bees world is built up around chemical scents and UV reflections, and so on and so forth--

Writing this I feel I understand what your saying enough to anticipate your response to this:

The stimulous doesnt matter, its the method employed in organizing the raw data (sensory input) that is universal.

IS that something to the effect of how you'd reply? If so I am coming closer to understanding you.

The point I try to make may not be entirely valid to you and what your saying, but its one Im stuck on.

Every mind builds the world around it based upon sensory input. Even as there is only one universe there are many minds, each one interpreting from the single universe its own unique form of reality. This is not to say all minds are isolated entities or events, disconnected from all other minds, but that all things are based upon perception at the individual level, and perceptions differ both subtly and wildly from mind to mind--and yet these differences do not preclude or espouse some universal quality--these differences do not serve as derivatives or integrals of some greater, internallized general form--

In other words the common tendancies you speak of are illusions, they are not concrete, they are in fact a byproduct of lifes consistency--but let me explain this paradox I have just lofted.

The universe is perfect, in that it is seamlessly curved, it offers directly no coherant image or sound or sensation of any pattern--it is a perfect amorphous blob of white noise--white noise made of "dots" so small they have no size, it is in a state of total chaos--when chaos reaches such a zeneith order is inevitably manifest. (in the I ching the notion exists that when something reaches a point where it can no longer increase or continue one of two things happen--it is instantly realized as its polar opposite, or it begins to decline towards a state of its polar opposite--right?)

I guess without wasting so many words Ill just jump to my point

There cannot be any generalizations or universals governing a system that is essentially a singularity--any univeral is a local universal only, existing in a "pocket locale" that lends itself to be identified as such--just being able to isolate any entity does not mean the entity exists in a sovereign state.

Life is one single thing with many faces, no face can see the same thing--

I will say that by now I am beginning to feel that my "arguements" do not directly apply to your studies, ironically I feel I am being to wide in my scope here, and not the opposite.

You have given me much patience and time, and I appreciate this fully.

I hope this discussion has been as beneficial to you as it has been to me.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
haha, one last thing just came to mind here--how is it a half silvered mirror provides a loophole to my ponderous rhetoric:

"can anyone stare into their own eyes without the benefit of a reflection?"
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Brian,

>
> Posted by Brian (Brian) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 6:49 am:
>
> Admittably Im a bit dense, but I dont mind if you dont mind--
>

I dont consider you dense, so stop considering yourself dense! ;-)

> There are many thinigs Id like to say in response to all this that you
> have last said--but I will limit myself to one question:
>
> Regarding the neuron, how can they be universal in their design and
> funtion--how can it be as generic as you imply? A zebra fishes
> neuorons are not the same as ours are they? My question is not
> rhetorical, Im asking because I dont know if they are or not.
>

Generically, neurons are neurons! At the level of the particular they take-on different forms to adapt to the local context but overall focus on data into input areas (dendrites), mediation/synchronisation in the cell body (soma), and output down the single axon (we have a number of classes in us but they map to (a) sensory neurons, (b) motor neurons, (c) inter-neurons
(associations etc))

The 'beginnings' of basic neural systems are at the level of "coelenterates" where we see the specialisation of cell tissue etc; the neuron is present and can form into aggregates for 'specialist' purposes but are more 'net'-like. The basic, simplest, CNS we are familiar with are in flatworms. We move on into basic invertebrates, arthopods etc and on into vertebrates and so eventually into the extreme complexity of our neurology (allowing for our sense of precision etc)

The inputs are AM (amplitude modulation) and so WAVE associated, the outputs are FM (frequency modulation) and so PULSE associated (discrete, wave transformed into parts - the pulses are of equal amplitudes and form a 'pulse train' to communicate the data - and so are serial, frequency focus, "as interpreted" - feedback onto the input areas can then turn up/down the volume/contrast of an experience or at 'higher' levels impose a past memory as filter)).

Our brains form the integrating station for incoming data, sensory cortex - we have a 'body image' in our brains - , and the response through motor cortex. Association areas allow for mediation of data and so use of positive (avoidance) and negative (approach) feedback processes.

The body image means that if I lose a limb, those neurons once associated with processing that limb data can be recruited by near-by neurons to aid them in their job - from this comes the 'phantom limb' experience where the memories of the lost limb are still present such that stimulation of these neurons can elicit past memories! (e.g. if they get taken-in by neurons operating with the face, a touch to the face can also elicit a sense of that lost limb!)

Senses reflect the same forms of adaptations, especially vision where the the fovea/parafovea structure of our eyes reflects the emergence of the differentiating, the details, from the integrating, the vague pattern matching.

> IF they have been demonstrated to be physically the same, in that they
> are encoded consistently in dna across species for example, does that
> translate into the fact that they are identical in function and design
> across species lines as you suggest as well?
>

It is all differentiating(FM, axon)/integrating(AM, dendrites) - with an agent of mediation in the middle (soma) - somewhere! ;-) - the soma in us has developed from an agent of ensuring recovery time to fire again to a more 'involved' focus on synchronisation and so issues of delay etc in information processing.

What the nerves CONTROL (what they 'inervate' to) depends on the adaptations of the local life form. They can set-off muscles contraction through release of a hormone directly onto the muscle, or to releasing hormones into the blood stream in general. In our brains the hormones are in the form of what are labelled as neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. THEY, with the soma, introduce the highs and lows of our experiences (and so associations with depression, mania etc) - and the categories of emotions etc that can come out of that map directly to patterns of differentiating/integrating.

> Does similair form, even identical form assert the same for function?
>

FM/AM. Differences will be in such areas as range (audition for us is 20 to 20K Hz, other life forms have lower/higher ranges. Integration of different senses into a common form, AM/FM, allow for translation of one sense data into another in the form of emotional resonances etc)

> Assuming a neuron is to neuron based life forms what a stem cell is to
> a single specimen of life, it is still not possible to say they
> function the same in us as they do in whales or zebra fish.
>

Neurons are neurons, they dont care what they are 'in'. They are SPECIALIST and so not the same as stem cells, they come from stem cells (and so the consideration of use of stem cells research to heal spinal damage). The focus of neurons is to interact with environment through stimulus/response processing and in that interaction also refine the responses to stimuli - with the development of consciousness so that dynamic can occur within the lifetime of the individual.

The sense/motor relationship is that of stimulus/response, integrate/fire. Aggregates can elicit 'group' behaviour not associated with any individual at that moment - see anything on the 'net re "flocking behaviour" - and that behaviour is 'in here' as well as 'out there' in the form of social collectives etc.

> What I mean by all this is that the operation and functioning of any
> given neuron depends completly upon what is ultmiately stimulating
> it--more specifically the source of the stimulation
>

No. All it deals with is electrical signals that are summed in amplitudes (AM) and translated to pulses (FM) to which our harmonics-sensitive natures (emotions etc) respond. The DELAY factor comes in with our consciousness that allows us to delay responses, 'refine' the response, be more context-sensitive etc. Less complex neuron-dependent life forms are not as context-sensitive as mammals upwards.

> If a batfish is colorblind, will its neurons work within the same
> framework ours do?

neurons that are not utilised for their particular purpose (e.g. processing harmonics of a sense) will get recruited by near-by neurons to aid THEM in their purpose. If I suture the eye of a newborn, and unsuture it after a few weeks, the brain area set-down to process that eye will already have its neurons recruited to serve the other eye.

People born blind but who have operations in much later life to restore their sight find that they have to keep practising to see since their core brain structures have compensated for the loss and cant be put back to their 'instinctive' purpose.

Recruitment is a property of neurons in that aggregation allows for increase in bandwidth to process information - distribution of labour 'rules' if possible ;-)

That said, modules are in our brain that specialise to varying degrees; thus the lobes of the hemispheres show specialist properties (visual cortex, auditory cortex) derived from general mechanisms (neurons). Genetic diversity allows for the newborn to be an integrate whole but with subtle 'hard coded' variations that allow for such conditions as synesthesia (see my old page http://www.ozemail.om.au/~ddiamond/synth.html)

> If a bat is blind, and if a spider is deaf, and if
> a snake is both deaf and blind, will all their neurons work the same
> way--how? They are not processing or "going on" the same
> information--a snake and spiders world is built around vibration, a
> bumble bees world is built up around chemical scents and UV
> reflections, and so on and so forth--
>

electrical signals; cell membrane potentials variations etc. EACH sense is specialist but the data gets converted to what our brains deal with, frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes. The frequency focus 'resonates' with spectrum processing and so relates to the harmonics of senses - colours for vision, chords for audition etc etc.

As a 'universal' response system, our emotions 'resonate' with sensory harmonics information, and so with a spectrum. The binary sequence of the IC 'maps' to the spectrum of basic emotions, reflecting what is beneath them - patterns of differentiating/integrating. There is the indication that core level communications is through spectrum exchange.

The IDM categories as such reflect a universal 'meaning' engine derived from basic analogue (AM) to digital (FM) conversion processes. the networks of our neurons allow for a hierarchy of local and distributed systems, and that included encoding/decoding of local/distributed instincts/habits/memories. (see anything on Cymantics - imagine the sand as neurons)

> Writing this I feel I understand what your saying enough to anticipate
> your response to this:
>
> The stimulous doesnt matter, its the method employed in organizing the
> raw data (sensory input) that is universal.
>

for meaning generation, yes. At single cell levels we focus on moving out, pulling pack, avoiding, approaching etc that maps to the basic blend, bond, bound, bind dynamics that apply to ANY sense.

THEN we particularise, we become context sensitive such that who is hitting me determines my response, and so context-sensitivity comes to the fore, the playfulness of a child vs the competitiveness of another adult etc.

> IS that something to the effect of how you'd reply? If so I am coming
> closer to understanding you.
>
> The point I try to make may not be entirely valid to you and what your
> saying, but its one Im stuck on.
>

thats ok ;-)

> Every mind builds the world around it based upon sensory input. Even
> as there is only one universe there are many minds, each one
> interpreting from the single universe its own unique form of reality.

Only as a small world network. The GENETICS involved encode basic information processing, the categories of which 'seed' the upper levels of our being and s flow into our consciousess as 'nouns, verbs' etc etc that we then associate with a particular condition through applying a label - be it by consensus with others or ideosyncratically.

if we apply dyes to the brain you get 'banding' - that banding reflecting the interactions of the genetically-complete form and the 'unknown' into which it has been placed/born - IOW the banding shows us the structure of the 'small world network' that has developed from the recursion of nature/nurture over time. Some universals are actualised, others remain as potentials etc.

> This is not to say all minds are isolated entities or events,
> disconnected from all other minds, but that all things are based upon
> perception at the individual level, and perceptions differ both subtly
> and wildly from mind to mind--and yet these differences do not
> preclude or espouse some universal quality--these differences do not
> serve as derivatives or integrals of some greater, internallized
> general form--
>

All sensory systems have evolved into OUR SPECIES sensory systems and so lays down basic qualities we all can share as a species to elicit meaning. The qualities set-down the core sense of SAMENESS out of which each individual, by nature or nurture, can develop LOCAL 'differences'.

When I see 'red', so will you and all others to varying degrees (and some with colour blindness will not see it other than as a shade of gray or shifted along the light spectrum). The sensory particulars can be mapped to a general sense of 'stop' etc given the context (e.g. at traffic lights).

> In other words the common tendancies you speak of are illusions, they
> are not concrete, they are in fact a byproduct of lifes
> consistency--but let me explain this paradox I have just lofted.
>

There is none. IMHO You fail to understand the properties and methods of hierarchic development - something well covered in the I Ching itself! ;-) - the binary ordering of the IC, based on recursion of yin/yang, will give you a spectrum that allows for the identification of difference FROM sameness. Rotate that ordering to give you sameness FROM difference.

> The universe is perfect, in that it is seamlessly curved, it offers
> directly no coherant image or sound or sensation of any pattern--it is
> a perfect amorphous blob of white noise--white noise made of "dots" so
> small they have no size, it is in a state of total chaos--when chaos
> reaches such a zeneith order is inevitably manifest. (in the I ching
> the notion exists that when something reaches a point where it can no
> longer increase or continue one of two things happen--it is instantly
> realized as its polar opposite, or it begins to decline towards a
> state of its polar opposite--right?)
>

The universe is unpredictable and so 'white noise'. Adaptations, developments of life within that universe, lead to the emergence of a context that is 'pink noise', with the occasional bit of 'black noise' - disasters etc. The development of pink noise allows for the encoding of particulars that lead to the discovery of common threads across those particulars and so the pink becomes increasingly brown (universals prone), and the white turns pink through our ability to predict outcomes.

In the IC the natural PAIRING of categories reflects the EXPLICIT assertion through the PAIR of an IMPLICIT form, the 'universe of discourse'. Given an intense focus on elementA of that pair, the more energy I put into that focus so the increased odds of it flipping into elementB, in that the elements are not discrete, they are interlaced. The 'flip' gives me the other side of the coin that the two elements represent. BUT, this is ONE method of TWO, where the TWO is in the TYPE of dichotomy, symmetric or assymetric. Flipping will be from the symmetric perspective. What happens in the asymmetric is the more differentiating can cool down back into the element it came from, or transcend to a new level of that element - and so reflect the dynamics of flipping ACROSS, BETWEEN, levels of the hierarchy rather than WITHIN a level.

In the IC we can control the degree of 'flip' through recognising the underlying interlace, the wave-nature, the AND state, of the IC and so all hexagrams. Thus I can pair 01 with 02 and get dramatic flips, or I can pair 02 with 23 and get more local flips. Each PAIR reflects the level of EXPRESSION of the quality covered at the previous level of meaning - the 'universe of discourse' itself is hierarchic - reflected in the recursion of differentiating/integrating.

If we work backwards so we move from XOR to AND, to a position of 'perfect' balance - but that is death to us - no highs, no lows means no making of distinctions, no role for mediation and so no role for individual consciousness. The point here is that if we move forwards, by XOR-ing, we arrive at a continuum where our senses can no longer detect new difference, all is same, BUT the fine structure of that continuum allows for LOCAL 'perturbations' - as covered in QM and the uncertainty principle that comes with recursion - IOW we avoid 'heat death' in the short term ;-)

If we review the dynamics of fermions/bosons we see the TWO forms of dichotomy at work:

(1) Assymetric where from a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate), through raising of temperature, and so energy, emerges a PAIR that becomes 'fermionic'. And so the fermion/boson dichotomy reflects the emergence of fermion from boson (and so boson from BEC)

(2) As the PAIR comes into being so with increased temperature it differentiates into - a symmetric dichotomy made up of, for example, electron/positron pair. These cannot remain in a paired state since they will 'destroy' each other to return to their bosonic form - IOW here we have opposition in that any change will elicit total transformation.

Thus at the supercooled level of (1) we have your 'blob' in the form of a BEC. start to heat things up and differentiation takes over from integration and we eventually move to (2).

This dynamic is the dynamic of differentiating/integrating. THAT format of a dichotomy will give us (1). When we then make finer distinctions so out pops the dichotomies of differentiated/differentiated or integrated/integrated - these reflect (2) in that their form is more WAVELIKE (+1/-1) than PULSE-like (infinity/0).

if we move up to our consciousness, and so the extension of core properties of (1) and (2) now behaving at the level of consciousness, we see how being COMPETITIVE allows for 'transcendence' and how being COOPERATIVE allows for 'transformation'. - these are properties/methods of differentiating/integrating and so apply to all dichotomies be they representing potentials or actuals.

(note in this that our brains have strongly adapted to light such that coming up with a model that indicates the BEC as 'fundamental' is understandable!)


Our models of reality, although LOCAL, will always reflect the UNIVERSAL in the form of recursion of differentiating/integrating. THAT ASYMMETRY is fundamental to our brains as it is reflected in the baryon octet - the octet that is asymmetric and so allows us to 'be'.

The main difference in all of this as far as WE are concerned is that we are not supposed to be here - our consciousness has emerged out of complex, mindless, mediation dynamics and in that process has learnt the patterns of differentiating/integrating and so can predict the future as well as model the past - all to varying degrees but enough for us to dominate the planet (but still struggle with ourselves! ;-)). The issue is now on fully understanding the differences between EXPRESSION, the topsoil, and what is BEHIND that expression - the bedrock. Trying to understand reality from the level of EXPRESSION is trying to understand reality from a small world network AS IF it was a regular network. The Universal IC approach shows us the bedrock - where that showing is only possible from analysis of our information processing bedrock - differentiating/integrating. From there we can overlay the small worlds, pick put the common themes, and come up with the language of the vague - the regular network that is the source of the Universal IC.

From that position, familarisation allows us to turn the white, at least pink ;-)

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Half silvering allows one to go past the reflection, and so allow for other sensory experiences to elicit 'meaning' ;-)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
"The main difference in all of this as far as WE are concerned is that we are not supposed to be here - our consciousness has emerged out of complex, mindless, ..."

No, no, we _are_ supposed to be here and we didn't emerge from mindless soup.
Long before there is any biological 'soup' consciousness already exists. Bodies and brains do not create it, it creates them.

You have it all upside down!
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
From an article about Bateson:
"Gregory Bateson was one of the first scholars to appreciate that the patterns of organization and relational symmetry evident in all living systems are indicative of mind. Here, we should not forget that due to the nineteenth century polemic between science and religion, any consideration of purpose and plan, e.g., mental process, had been a priori excluded from science as non-empirical, or immeasurable. Any reference to mind as an explanatory or causal principle had been banned from biology. Even in the social and behavioral sciences, references to mind remained suspect."

The same is true for "soul" and other such concepts, we have tried to ban them, along with introspection as a means of gathering evidence.
But personally I feel more and more that these old concepts, crude and unsophisticated as they may seem to us, fit my inner experience much better than all the complicated abstractions of philosophy, biology, (scientific) psychology, and so on. Including Bateson's 'mind', even although I appreciate his thinking.
Yes, I am a 'soul' or a 'spirit' that is somehow linked to this body but also exists independent of it. I do not merely believe it, it's evident to me, this is how I experience it. And all the talk about 'unnecessary dualism', the illusionary 'ghost in the machine', etcetera, cannot convince me that it is otherwise.

Is it not time to put the "polemic between science and religion" to a rest after all these years, trust our inner experience and stop avoiding the unavoidable?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
IMHO What you fail to comprehend Martin is that there is no *need* for the 'consciousness as originating' hypothesis. As such there is no XOR going on, religion/science is not a symmetric dichotomy, it is asymmetric and so the differentiating from the integrating and that refines the integrating.

Religion includes consciousness and so adopts triadic perspectives where there is no need.

The ORIGINAL perspectives of our early ancestors was REACTIVE and used anthropomorphism to describe reality - a natural thing to do when there is no measure other than with reference to yourself.

The NEUROLOGY goes way back showing us degrees of developing awareness to the level of us where the theory of mind is well developed. It is less developed, but still present, in 'lower' life forms down to the level of those forms overly REACTIVE in their interactions with the environment.

What can be reviewed is the CONSEQUENCES of consciousness are such perspectives of authors such as De Chardin or Tippler.

I repeat, there is no NEED for "Consciousness as originating" perspective from a Science position. Thats it. Now for those who NEED an intelligent origin that is to them 'meaningful' that is up to them but Science works on empirical studies, repeatable events, etc

The current secular Existentialist perspectives are complemented by the 'religion' most suited to Science - Buddhism (and even then, WITHOUT the organisational elements, the institutional elements)

Buddhism works on (a) no god and (b) cause-effect (its basic principles strongly reflect "Scientific Method" and the path is to personal enlightenment, the source is within - there are LOTS of buddhas in that they have all followed the footsteps of the original, the first, buddha. In the monadic faiths of Christianity etc so one cannot become 'Jesus' etc only serve some 'external' source etc! - that said, institutionalised Buddhism often reflects the personality cult of the monadic faiths - with the buddhists asserting that going through that element is part of the development phase where it is 'eventually' thrown off - but then the 'reincarnation' focus allows for a reactive bias to life rather than the intense proactive bias of faiths with no belief in reincarnation ("all must be done NOW" as compared to "Jeeze I stuffed up here, but thats ok I will get it right in the next life!")

The more monadic faiths, where the community serves the founder rather than allowed to become like the founder, reflect classic exaggerations, anthropomorphisms, that come out of idealist, YANG, 'outwards' perspectives focused on some charismatic, untouchable, leader.

There is an overall 'aristocratic' perspective that serves as a 'light' to attract moths where the moths can never become the light - get too close and they get burnt.

Buddhism focuses on one becoming a light, having an 'internal' light that serves to guide - as such, using the binary ordering of qualities, monadic faiths are into heaven or lake, Buddhism is more into fire and so not as 'intense', as 'fragmented' as the strongly monadic, 'male dominated' faiths (in Buddhism females can reach the same states as males in that the focus is on what is in between your ears, not what is in between your legs - that said, institutionalised buddhism can be 'corrupted' by male/female social dynamics at times)

I find ANY faiths that dehumanise the female as totally and utterly unacceptable - they reflect 'primitive' mindsets still rooted in a primate, alpha male, perspective (that said, bonobons are matriarchical in form and sex is the controller over anger. BUT in that context so males can be interpreted as being impoverished!) - that said, institutional Science can do the same thing (and I dont like it either).

As such, the more 'yang' the context so the more exaggerating, and fundamentalist, competitive, the spiritual perspectives. As such, your perspective is natural to our consciousness, it is covered in the range of consciousness states, but there is no necessity to for it to be an originating perspective (Yin is more the case, group nature that elicits a group sense of connectedness etc that is then exaggerated, differentiated etc)

The actions of consciousness as an agent of mediation allows for TRIADIC perspectives that are not necessarily part of reality 'as is' - that reality is more DYADIC but 'skewed' due to the pairing of differentiating/integrating.

Working from the position of consciousness so the triadic perspective is favoured where one of the elements is intentional mediation.

That perspective DOES have its roots in the dynamics of the neuron but from a position that was mechanical one where neural firing needed recovery time for its biochemstry to prepare for the next firing. That DELAY, through increased complexity overall, allowed for the development of synchronisation/recruitment processes such that from a 'mindless' switch dynamic emerged a focus on intentional mediation.

Move outside of our heads and into observing reality 'as is' and it becomes obvious that intentional mediation is a byproduct of our being, it is not necessarily 'originating' - complex numbers etc are not originating, real numbers fit 'AS IS', WHOLES, complex are a product of our parts perspectives and as such depend on conjugating to be expressed 'as is'.

Triadic elements are present in number systems derived from complex numbers (and so in quaternions and octonions) and reflect the presence of - mediation.

The FAILURE of triadic perspectives in their attempts to map reality is in their failure to recognise the fact that mediation is not of the same 'eternal' nature as differentiating/integrating - IOW when the mediation is complete it goes away - as we see with our consciousness as it mediates new experiences (See Libet's work in this area).

as such, there is no 'battle' of religion/science, there is no need in that Science is an ongoing process as it maps out reality -in that mapping we come across GROUP dynamics that favour a 'link' in the form of protection etc and so any spirituality is seen from that perspective as very much 'in here' and not necessarily 'out there'.

The only 'competitive' individuals are those working from religion (e.g. current case in Kansas re "Intelligent Design" perspectives.) where there is this need for 'instant gratification' - as shown by you in the last paragraph above!

The Science perspective works off DELAY, MEDIATION, and as such is more reflective of the dynamics of consciousness as an agent of DOING rather than just BEING.

FROM the idealism of our consciousness can come a hybrid reality mixing the materialism of the universe with the idealism of our brains. In that development we need to consider the advances in understanding consciousness etc and so the need to 'update' past perspectives with current research; not reject current research to sustain old beliefs - note that in current times it is the fundamentalism of monadic religious perspectives that is causing a lot of strife. This is a realm of singlemindedness, of absolute faith in something 'external' to our species and so ignoring of any possible negative aspects.

From a Science perspective, the data supports a species source of any sense of the 'spiritual'. Focus on that and we can all get along; reflect the fragmentation that comes out of high level differentiation and we move into the realm of the competitive as a universal rather than something local. Simply put, if we keep our spirituality notions to ourselves, recognise the personal elements as personal and we can all live together based on recognising the GENERAL sense of connection of the species.

IOW there is no need for 'god' or 'gods' etc given what the development path we are on, but there IS a need for integrating socially, more than the current fragmentation that is going on.


Chris.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top