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

[lightofdarkness]

A qualification:

Associating Buddhism with fire was to make the energy comparison with lake-heaven. IF we split the trigram energy orderings low to high so we have:

000, 001, 010, 011 Yin Path
100, 101, 110, 111 Yang Path

Here the association with a lesser exaggeration of energy puts Buddhism with Mountain - we develop internal quality control through our suffering.

If you map out the hexagrams for mountain and fire, their generic qualities reflect more Buddhist-like/Secular-like aspects than the hard-core nature of lake-heaven (yin path being water-wind).

That said, we can take Buddhism as a whole and find the whole of the IC applicable as a source of analogy for describing Buddhism in total.

Chris.

 

[luz]

This is way over my head... but something caught my attention. I don't know much about Buddhism but, from what I understood, it doesn't say there is 'no God', it just leaves the God question alone.

It kind of concentrates in treating the crippling symptoms and leave the diagnosis of the actual illness to be discovered later, or in a very gradual way, at least until you're not in pain anymore.

Am I totally wrong????

 

[lightofdarkness]

(1) grasp the notion of X
(2) grasp the beginnings of X; the cause of X, the birth of X etc etc
(3) grasp the endings of X; the effect of X, the death of X etc etc
(4) grasp fully the path of development from cause to effect
(5) carefully note all details of 1 to 4
(6) share details with peers clearly, allowing them to 'walk in your shoes' and come up with the same experiences
(7) (6) can be done in conversation or in peer-reviewed journals.

Note in (4) that the derivation of the FULL path can be done by taking the dichotomy derived from (2) and (3) of begin/end, cause/effect etc and apply recursion to elicit a spectrum with a definite 'path' to follow, but at the same time each point on that path is developing itself; a horizontal path with vertical dynamics! ;-) - and so forms a matrix.

Also note in (4) that in the process of recursion, each level will elicit a set of qualities usable to communicate 'meaning'. The method of recursion will encode the whole in all parts such that a level is reachably VERY quickly that is (a) generic enough to require little expenditure in energy to understand 'in general', and (b) detailed enough to be used in a self-referencing manner to 'go deeper' if need be.

What is this level? How many qualities does it have? - eight. This is a property of the METHOD of recursion of a dichotomy and as such we see in the above 'logical' steps basic properties of the brain at work, where the 'eight fold path' of (4) reflects the intuitive recognition of core understanding from that position - trying to do 'more' just gives more details, no sharp distinctions.

There is no 'god' in any of this, no 'soul' etc etc - the 'four noble truths' of buddhism reflect their source - the dynamics of the brain in deriving experiences, sharing experiences, validating experiences. No more. No less.... other than the idea that with this dynamic so one 'refines' oneself - and the brain does this to refine its instincts/habits, to learn 'good' instincts/habits with which to adapt to reality but at the same time to 'refine' one's inner being.

I am not a buddhist, my focus is on the source of meaning and so covers all expressions, but the 'best fit' to a 'spiritualisation' of a scientist, something that can resonate with Science, is buddhism - when faced with the 'in your face' existentialist perspective outwards, one can turn and complement that perspective by looking, developing, inwards.... and so no robes, rituals, required (but being 'spiritual' so many do 'celebrate' - where they are considered lacking understanding at the moment - that being part of the path to understanding!)

Chris.

 

[luz]

Is it just me, or did you just prove the non-existence of God??? Or maybe you just provided logical proof, based on a belief system... Still!

did I just say that??

I'm leaving... I'm leaving...

 

[martin]

".. there is no *need* for the 'consciousness as originating' hypothesis .."

I'm not so sure about this anymore. The idea behind 'we don't need' (Occam's razor) is to keep things as simple as possible. But when applied to 'soul', 'consciousness' and the like, the razor seems to make things much more complicated.
Apart from that the razor is often used incorrectly. We-don't-need-it becomes it-doesn't-exist. Doh!

Buddhism, yes, very good example of how it also can be done.
Buddhism is different from science in that it allows for introspection as a valid way to gather 'data'. And although Buddhists may not use words like 'soul' (at least not in the Christian sense) or 'God' they use the words 'mind' and 'awareness'. What they mean by 'mind' is something that is encountered and observed inwardly, not the hidden in the black box thing of western scientific psychology that can only be accessed indirectly.

Of course introspection needs training. If scientifically oriented psychologists are asked why introspection was 'banned' they usually come up with experiments that 'show' that it cannot be trusted. But if you ask a novice to interpret the dots on a radar screen or the vague contours on a Rontgen picture - what do you expect? They will only see a meaningless blur. That doesn't mean that they can not learn to interpret it. We know that they can. So these experiments really don't prove anything.

"complex numbers etc are not originating, real numbers fit 'AS IS .."

I think that complex numbers fit better, although we invented/constructed them later, historically. The complex numbers are algebraically closed and the more simple and elegant properties of functions only come out when we 'go complex'.

 

[martin]

Lightangel!

Where are you going? Other thread?

 

[martin]

Probably needless to say, Chris, that I completely agree with you when you say "I find ANY faiths that dehumanise the female as totally and utterly unacceptable".
But then I would certainly not advocate a return to beliefs and practices of any institutionalized religion. Just open the door a bit more for 'inner evidence', that's all.

 

[hester]

"it doesn't say there is 'no God', it just leaves the God question alone.

It kind of concentrates in treating the crippling symptoms and leave the diagnosis of the actual illness to be discovered later, or in a very gradual way, at least until you're not in pain anymore.

Am I totally wrong????"

no, you are right.

 

[luz]

Thank you, Hester, thank you!

 

[luz]

Martin!

yes, I left for the (relative) safety of the other thread... See you there!

 

[lightofdarkness]

> Of course introspection needs training. If scientifically oriented
> psychologists are asked why introspection was 'banned' they usually
> come up with experiments that 'show' that it cannot be trusted.

I think you need to qualify that - to "cannot be trusted FROM a Science perspective". Science is about repeatability, algorithms and formulas, UNIVERSALS. As such all that can be trusted are aggregates, not individuals (individuals are driven to interpret and so their interpretations can 'colour' findings.)

This all gets back to the small world perspectives where the focus in Science is on discovering the regular network and so the general, the universal, and all from a position of predicting events in general (e.g. end of the universe, beginning of the universe etc; from the universal IC a situation that is 'bonding' etc and so a guide)

Buddhism works off the same generic principles of repeatability but from mapping introspection, formalising it into a language shareable with others (as Science does with the use of Mathematics etc) but WITHIN (and, IMHO, it needs 'universalising' in that the language is rooted in ancient terms (pali texts etc) that can be 'modernised' without, IMHO, changing experiences etc)

What we see here in both perspectives is a feedback loop of summing 'small world network' perspectives and extracting from that the regular network, the universals. Then, GIVEN the universals, we can go back to the LOCAL context and refine the associated small world network dynamics, make them more efficient and yet retain their unique perspective. (there is also the ability to work only with the universals, a la 'pure' mathematics as compared to 'applied' mathematics)

Einstein's introspection regarding travelling on a beam of light etc allowed for the formalisation of relativity theory, but that sort of dynamic is not everyday and most lack the training in Physics that allowed for the 'factual' element to emerge from the imagined. (Einstein also agreed that Buddhism was a 'best fit' for the spiritual response to Science etc)

> But if
> you ask a novice to interpret the dots on a radar screen or the vague
> contours on a Rontgen picture - what do you expect? They will only see
> a meaningless blur. That doesn't mean that they can not learn to
> interpret it. We know that they can. So these experiments really don't
> prove anything.
>

The moment you impose, by TELLING, training on thinking so you impose a particular perspective, specialisation - e.g. "traditional IC" or "traditional Buddhism" with all of its institutional trappings); SHOW the properties and methods involved in our neurology, the METHOD of thinking in general, and that exposure is GENERAL and so allowing for local 'variations' on the theme rather than imposing a particular - it is that local variation, the 'free will' element that elicits innovative creativity besides adaptive creativity.

The IDM/ICPlus perspective has been on summing all of the different interpretations/translations of the LOCAL IC and identifying the universals present in all of them. FROM there we can go back and refine local interpretations but at the same time retain their unique aspects.

As such, the analysis has been from a COGNITIVE format, not a LOGIC format, in that local dynamics can skew the logic. (cognition accepts both the analytical and dialectical natures of logic and so is more general but in being more general has a wider scope, is more inclusive than local perspectives. E.g. 'capitalist' perspectives are rooted in analytical thinking, 'socialist' perspectives more in dialectical thinking. Cognitive analysis spans both, and so Logic as a whole, but at a general level. This methodology stems from a precise analysis of the analytical to a degree where it all 'flipped' to the other side to make sense of things in toto)

> "complex numbers etc are not originating, real numbers fit 'AS IS .."
>
> I think that complex numbers fit better, although we
> invented/constructed them later, historically. The complex numbers are
> algebraically closed and the more simple and elegant properties of
> functions only come out when we 'go complex'.
>
>

The point I was making was that our PRECISION stems from our "AS INTERPRETED" perspectives where our consciousness allows us to go PAST the dynamics of wholes and into parts analysis. IN that analysis, the use of labels brings out an overall focus on differentiating and in so doing clearly identifying, universalising.

Our species-nature, our primate nature, is "AS IS" oriented and it is that realm that is originating - reflecting the development of neuron-dependent life forms. FROM that emerges consciousness as an agent of mediation, and in that agency so emerges the derivation of CHOICES in response, bestfit/worstfit mappings, Schrodinger's wave equation, I Ching binary sequences etc where LOCAL context introduces a probability factor re LOCAL expression of each universal element that makes up the universal wave/sequence.

The moment we move past 'real' numbers, the moment we move into the realm of XOR/IMP in a big way, so the moment we introduce TRIADIC perspectives where one of the elements of the triad is mediation and we build that into our maps and then they become OUR maps; when we try to impose those rigid, triadic, perspectives on reality we find 'issues' and those come from the attempt to make the mediation 'hard coded' when it isn?t 'out there', it is 'in here'.

This is all reflective of frontal lobe dynamics, of the use of reason, the rational, the delayed etc. The 'problem' is that our frontal lobes and their associated dynamics have EVOLVED, they are not originating, and as such damage to these areas can return one to a more 'primate-like' form of behaviour, emotional responses are not 'suppressed' etc, it is all instincts driven.

'Rational' perspectives show TRIADIC biases (e.g. the semiotics of Peirce etc) and FAIL when taken beyond their base level properties/methods (Peirce's category of signs eventually disappeared into 'gaga-land' through, IMHO, his insistence on maintaining the triadic.)

As such, these models can be useful in mapping the FUTURE of US, but not the universe "AS IS" where differentiating/integrating rule and LOCAL issues can elicit mindless mediation dynamics that can then disappear or else become part of the whole! THAT emergence/disappearance factor of mediation is not considered in rigid triadic models.

Being more 'in here', so Buddhism appears to be the best method for working with 'in here' in that it demands repeatability etc but retains LOCAL biases (introspection etc). The 'inner light' is part of our individual consciousness that is then sharable with others due to our collective sameness in the form of our neurology - LOCAL differences are summed to elicit universal patterns that can be fed-back to refine the local differences. As such, Science focuses on objectifying the subjective (distance from, push away) to allow for the re-integration of that object by all; Buddhism on the other hand focuses on subjectifying the objective (approach personally, pull in) allowing for re-integration of that object by each.

Behaviourally, the "Structure of Personality" reflects all possible states of GENERAL expressions of persona and so of consciousness. The PARTICULAR nature of individual consciousness means that some will introspect with a focus on positive feedback that associates with avoidance methods (back away from, distance self from etc), others with a focus on negative feedback that associates with approach methods (go towards, associate self with etc).

The focus overall is on the working with inner experience, a perspective at odds with the 'personality cults' of monadic faiths where the 'rules and regulations' are in some external source where your contribution is rejected, you cannot 'add' to that source, the Bible is 'fixed' from the 4th century AD! - in Buddhism you can, through logging a sutra of your own that others find of use overall. IOW any individual can become an 'enlightened one' and make a contribution to their faith. (as you can in Science through contribution of some algorithm/formula - e.g. "Einstein's E = MC^2" etc - as such the personality focus is distributed across many, not focused on 'one' as we find in the hard-core monadic faiths)

This gets into the trigram PAIR of earth/mountain in their FIVE PHASE manifestations of EARTH aka FILTRATION.

Filtration is the most economic form of rules/regulations but it comes in two forms:

Earth trigram - unconditional devotion where the filtering is SUPPLIED by external sources (Bible, Koran, Instincts from genetics etc) - IOW if the bible says "don?t" then "don?t"! period.

Mountain trigram - conditional devotion where filtering is derived from personal experiences, the suffering of existence is translated into quality control, filtering is conditional.

The Earth perspective goes nowhere; it just 'is'.
The Mountain perspective reflects the passage to/through an internal 'gateway'; blockages, sufferings, are surmountable by focusing WITHIN and that focus is structured IN GENERAL and so allowing for personal biases etc.

If we put earth over mountain so the focus is on hex 15 and properties and methods of unconditional levelling-out.

If we put mountain over earth so the focus is on hex 23 and properties and methods of conditional devotion, of housekeeping to bring out the wheat, remove the chaff (and so stop 'collapse') - get back to the core 'light'.

Chris.

 

[martin]

In computers we see that higher level software does not necessarily inherit properties of the hardware and lower level software. In fact, if lower level properties 'break trough' to higher levels this often indicates that something is wrong. It might indicate a hardware failure or badly designed software.
The MS Windows operating system doesn't always 'mask' lower levels (in its treatment of 'pipes', for instance) and one programmer I know referred to this as 'Microsoft brain damage'.

From computers to brains is admittedly a jump but I think it is reasonable to suppose that the brain is also organized in such a way that what happens at lower levels, below the levels on which 'we' hang out or seem to hang out, is masked as much as possible. It is a principle of 'good design' where it doesn't matter if the brain was literally designed by a creator or metaphorically by evolution.
If lower levels break through and I see stars and stripes before my eyes this usually indicates a hangover or something, unless I'm looking at the American flag, of course.
And if I see stars and stripes all the time it will probably decrease my chances in the race of the survival of the fittest a lot, although it might be an asset when I want to join the American army.

So the question is, how much can we explain, based on what happens on 'lower' neurological levels? How far can we go?
From a science perspective it is as yet very unclear, I think. Your explanation of the double-slit experiment might be okay, for instance, but on your page (../bits.html?) you don't prove that the mechanism that you propose actually results in an interference pattern. You only suggest it. Some kind of mathematical proof (or perhaps a computer simulation if that is too difficult) would be needed to make it scientifically acceptable.

As it is it is not science, not yet.
You still have a few scientific miles to go, I would say, and not only in the land of QM.

As to consciousness, awareness and the like, we don't know where it comes from, scientifically. Perhaps it is somehow 'produced' by the nervous system, perhaps it is not. As far as science goes, the question is entirely open.

Would you agree?

 

[martin]

"The moment you impose, by TELLING, training on thinking so you impose a particular perspective, specialisation - e.g. "traditional IC" or "traditional Buddhism" with all of its institutional trappings); SHOW the properties and methods involved in our neurology, ..."

The implication is, if I understand you correctly, that your perspective is NOT a particular perspective, although someone who is new to it and wants to use it obviously needs training.

The rationale: it is rooted in our neurology.

I can understand that you believe that and that your belief is strengthened because you see for yourself that your approach 'works' in different areas.
But it is still a 'prescientific' belief, in my opinion. We do not KNOW, again from a strict science perspective, what is rooted in our neurology and what is not, even apart from the level problem that I alluded to in my earlier post.

And I must say that I personally do experience your approach as specialized, very much so ...

 

[lightofdarkness]

We know rather well, from the level that IDM works out of, what is going on 'in here' - WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating rules ;-)

IDM is derived from analysis of a lot of empirical studies - go through the abstracts/references/further-reading:

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

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

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

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

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

The work in fMRI, PET, CAT scans etc etc etc is giving us insights never thought possible in the past. THAT work, that specialist work, when summed across different disciplines/sub-disciplines brings out the IDM patterns as universals in the context of meaning derivation at the level of the neuron. FROM there comes categorisation, conceptualisation, symbolisms, metaphors. LABELS for the core qualities.

I have commented that one of the forms of mathematics that may be useful is that used with particle physics etc - see comments at the end of:

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

I have also contacted Kaufmann to see what he can come up with ;-) (I am not a mathematician ;-))

I dont recall any mathematics in the "Origin of Species" - just well documented observations and reasoning. THEN came maths.

At the other end, special relativity was pure maths and needed empirical studies to confirm it - so we move from both areas ;-)

As for IDM being specialist, it is more meta-specialisation, ABOUT specialisation and it cannot be specialised in that doing so converts into a replacement focus where there is none - it is a guide, cooperative focus, not competative overall; as such it shows the general, the universal qualities, working in all neuron dependent life forms - with complexity allowing for our perspectives to dominate others.

Chris.

 

[martin]

"I have also contacted Kaufmann to see what he can come up with ;-) "

Interesting. I'm curious what he will say about it. Let us know.

"I dont recall any mathematics in the "Origin of Species" "

Neither do I, but I haven't read it. Lol.

"THEN came maths."

Better late than never.

I think, btw, that a computer simulation can do the 'trick'. But let's see what Kaufmann comes up with first ..