Archive for the TD/BU Category

Top Down/Bottom Up

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 10, 2010 by ellocogringo

TD/BU

I know NOTHING” – Schultz, Hogan’s Heros

Bottom up thinking makes NO assumptions. “It is obvious that” has no place in bottom up thinking. Nothing is taken for granted. This is fuzzy logic (bottom up thinking) Which can be “The best answer to date” (level 1), “This idea seems to work for the moment” (level 2) or the less definitive “Could be” (Level 3)

I am painting with a broad brush here. So as not to bloat the concepts, I will omit the exceptions, special cases and disclaimers.

Fuzzy logic is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise. In contrast with “crisp logic”, where binary sets have binary logic, the fuzzy logic variables may have a membership value of not only 0 or 1 – that is, the degree of truth of a statement can range between 0 and 1 and is not constrained to the two truth values of classic propositional logic. Oh Really!, you think so huh?

In fact what is accepted as truth in top down thinking is only Level 1 as determined by bottom up thinking. It is NEVER complete, and could be entirely wrong if hijacked by religion, education or other societal programming. If this societal programming occurs during the critical period of growth (birth-age 7 or puberty) it can become imprinting, a PERMANENT inability of the mind to accept new concepts. A person can know, but not understand a concept that does not fit into this framework. They become idiots (not used as a pejorative but as a clinical term, I am, after all, striving to be professional) The implications of this imprinting are profound. Bottom up thinking is regarded as psychotic by mental health and meta-physical bullshit by the general population. Not only is creativity crushed by this imprinting but it has resulted in a society composed of zombies (stupid people, doing stupid things for stupid reasons) living a meaningless existence in an ant warren.
An example of this is physics, in which the nature of the universe being of a wave nature is known but not understood. To date I am aware of a dozen people who understand, and half of them are dead. Some of the live ones are;
Ted Lumley>http://goodshare.org/wp/whats-the-matter/
Gabriel LaFreniere> http://glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm
Milo Wolff> http://www.quantummatter.com/
Consider the following discussion between Chief Dan George, Erwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein on the wave nature of the universe.
http://goodshare.org/wp/whats-the-matter/
The question was posed “is space making electrons or are electrons making space?”
Automatically excluded were the possibilities of both or neither. This is the “brain fart” a built in logic flaw in the brain.
The answer is NOT A or B but both or neither.
Please note I am not speaking of physics here, I am speaking of thinking of physics.
http://www.divshare.com/direct/12610892-4f8.pdfI recently became interested in the aboriginal framework of reasoning. I have heard it described as circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed. This imprinting is canabilastic in nature, like the zombie, it want’s to eat your brains. It is the Ayn Rand Beast.
Consider the Protohuman “Charlie Chimp” in the paleolithic, considering whether he should bonk Polly protohuman. Using top down thinking the answer comes out in a simplified, non-nuanced yes or no. However, As Charlie hasn’t had the social imprinting to mess up his mind, he can use another logic method. Bottom up, a weighted Boolean network with possibilities of yes, no, or maybe. The weighting aspect is an aggregate and accumulative bias. Most simply explained by the logic tree “The last time I bonked Polly protohuman, how many times did the alpha male hit me, and how hard?” Charlie compares the bottom up and top down logic and makes a decision on whether his genetic heritage will be carried on through Polly. Very useful as a bullshit detector. “Is what this guy babbling about consistent with my previous experience?” From an assholes point of view, this bullshit detector must be turned off so as to brainwash the idiot. Painting with a broad brush, “education put the sub in subconscious”, was preceded by “religion put the sub in subconscious” preceded by “the alpha male put the sub in subconscious”. (I have a fear that if I talk like an idiot I may start thinking like one.) People have lost the ability to say Bullshit!

Moving right along, when my bullshit detector goes off, I discard ALL logic and view input as data only until the issue is resolved. I have discarded all physics as speculation. It doesn’t even pass the “could be” test. It’s bullshit. Godel’s model has less bullshit than most, but it’s still bullshit. (I suspect that he may understand what he’s saying and is trying to communicate with idiots). All of his twisted logic and convoluted math doesn’t prove or disprove anything. All he has done is twist and stretch the rubber ruler till it matches observed data. My observation on this matter has been that knowledge is inversely proportional to understanding. “Stupid may be catching” – el Loco Gringo From an egocentric point of view, the disjuncture occurs inside the skull, this difference between a perception of reality and the interpretation of same. As far as I can see, the vast majority of speculation on the output side is bullshit. On the input side all I have to work with is a filtered perception. This filtered perception leads me to conclude that it has a rotational aspect (perceived) and has a beat of 8 (is recursive with a harmonic of 8) That it is vibrations and is negentropic seems too obvious to discuss. There is overwhelming evidence that it is and nothing but “common sense” that says it isn’t. I am shocked that you consider “rotating vectors” a notion. Granted it’s a kludge, but it’s the best kludge available (to date) The entire industrialized civilization is built around this kludge. By filtered I mean that we do not have input across the entire spectrum. For instance, you turn on a radio and music comes out. There is obviously something invisible happening. Depending on one’s world view, this could be interpreted as magic, god, nirvana, whatever. (Actually I kind of like the idea of god, if there is one there is no evidence he gives a shit about man, one way or the other) If the universe is harmonic vibrations, it logically follows that time, color, touch, and sound are the minds way of making sense of motion, (time) non-motion, (touch) vibrations in the 20-20khz range (sound) and 300-700Thz. (color) Every one knows it but no one understands it. It should be obvious once it is pointed out, but it isn’t to most people. Why?

In fact what is accepted as truth in top down thinking is only Level 1 as determined by bottom up thinking. It is NEVER complete, and could be entirely wrong if hijacked by religion, education or other societal programming. If this societal programming occurs during the critical period of growth (birth-age 7 or puberty) it can become imprinting, a PERMANENT inability of the mind to accept new concepts. A person can know, but not understand a concept that does not fit into this framework. They become idiots (not used as a pejorative but as a clinical term, I am, after all, striving to be professional) The implications of this imprinting are profound. Bottom up thinking is regarded as psychotic by mental health and meta-physical bullshit by the general population. Not only is creativity crushed by this imprinting but it has resulted in a society composed of zombies (stupid people, doing stupid things for stupid reasons) living a meaningless existence in an ant warren.Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed.

This imprinting is canabilastic in nature, like the zombie, it want’s to eat your brains. It is the Ayn Rand Beast. “There is a slavering beast devouring the mind of man. You know that no matter how eloquent the words, how impecable the logic, how irrefutable the facts, it can’t be reached, not in any way. There is no mind there” – Ayn Rand I call it the abyss, IE all words fall into the abyss. I like beast better Consider the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, perhaps the greatest treatise on philosophy ever written. When queried on which road to take, he responded “Well, if you don’t know where you’re going it doesn’t much matter which path you take” And this is, in fact, where we are when trying to figure something out. WE DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. To start with the answer and work our way back to the question is insane. Can’t anyone else see that?

Next>Consider

Inclusional DataMining pTruthnTruth Multiplism Thoughts Idiots RT/CTSurvival PairODis Mach

Protected: Single Dime

Posted in TD/BU on October 9, 2010 by ellocogringo

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

pod racer

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , on September 12, 2010 by ellocogringo

Star Wars Episode I Phantom menance. I have heard my ANN model compared to centered with both pipelines going. The Star Wars jet pod racer comes to mind. Not unlike my chariot model with the matched team. The full statement was “how do we get to this state, centered with both pipelines going? This is more about what it ain’t than what it is. You don’t cripple the pipelines with ideology. Don’t put governors on the pods, don’t hobble the horses.

To keep from getting confused, I’ll name these two pods finesse and power.

walt

Mach

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2010 by ellocogringo

Ernst

Mach

>What these fools did, as Mach has said, was to save their successors the trouble of thinking. If they had worked solely in view of an immediate application, they would have left nothing behind them, and in face of a new requirement, all would have had to be done again. Now the majority of men do not like thinking, and this is perhaps a good thing, since instinct guides them, and very often better than reason would guide a pure intelligence, at least whenever they are pursuing an end that is immediate and always the same. But instinct is routine, and if it were not fertilized by thought, it would advance no further with man than with the bee or the ant. It is necessary, therefore, to think for those who do not like thinking, and as they are many, each one of our thoughts must be useful in as many circumstances as possible. For this reason, the more general a law is, the greater is its value.
Mr T>it gives me another way of looking at the problems in our society. i think that our KISS habit amounts to an ‘economy of words’. the economy of thought is moving us towards ‘everything is One’ while the economy of words is moving us to jargon whose individual words unfold into a story and each person reading them has to supply their own version of the story. within the story are many more words, whose meaning is of the same vintage as when those who do not like thinking were told what they meant.
Mach, in this snippit has made a couple of logic flaws.
1) He seems to feel that There is one thing happening inside the skull and one outside.
2) He has not considered all the possibilities.
call it extrinsic/intrinsic, whatever
As to 1) there are two things happening inside the skull and one outside.
As to 2) there are 4 possibilities, not 2.

Inside the skull are two processes, top down and bottom up
top down (binary, serial, whatever) leads him to believe there are people who like to think and people who don’t.
1) people who like to think
2) people who don’t.
This is, in and of itself, kiss thinking.
As I see it (boolean, parallel whatever)
HOWEVER, if you work the logic both ways (bottom up) there are 4 possibilities.
1) people who like to think
2) people who don’t
3) people who won’t
4) people who can’t
both views are valid, but bottom up is the more complete. By complete, i mean we have reached the limit of mankinds cognitive abilities. (inside the skull only, which may not be an absolute limit.)
for instance, you contrast thought and words, you seem to be mixing oranges and orangutans.
thinking contrasts with musing
words contrasts with symbols.
thinking goes with words
musing goes with symbols

It’s an equation with these parameters. Philosophy, simply put, is a seemingly endless debate over what side of the equals sign to put the parameters on. A worldview is just different words used to describe these parameters, and determine the right and wrong side of the equals sign to put these words on.
Oranges and orangutans is an interesting topic by the way, I’ll do a post on them. Oranges

Pair a dimes

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2010 by ellocogringo

Paradigm
shift in
thinking
required

>there is no reason that a western person can’t see things the same way and intuitively he does (‘what goes around comes around’

This conclusion is false. A western person can know but not understand. Mr Ted understands and knows. His approach appears to be to differentiate lesser minds who are speculating only rather than integrating HIS own concepts into HIS framework in terms HE can understand so as to be able to communicate. This appears to me to be like trying to explain calculus to an uneducated person by using pebbles. A considerable task indeed when you consider that most physicists don’t understand calculus. I feel that there is much to be gained in helping him in his quest.
>”I’m trying to imagine a science fiction movie in which large numbers of humans shifted their thinking to bring it more into alignment with what you’re suggesting. Perhaps it’s inaccurate to suggest humans would be responsible for this shift. However it happens, what would it look like I wonder?”

AE van Vogt, the world of Null A (non-aristotelian)

But yes, a new way of thinking is required, but I don’t see how this can be accomplished in the numbers necessary to enable the momentum required to shift mankind’s course. we need to get past how we think, and look instead at how we think about thinking. I’ve been trying to figure this out for 65 years without success. Somebody once commented, Eddington I think, “once we figure out that one and one is two, we think we understand. We forget we need to analyze “and”. No matter how eloquent the words, no matter how irrefutable the facts, no matter how impecable the logic, no matter how noble the cause, You know that they can’t hear you. Not in any way. There are no neurons there.

Iteration

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , on August 1, 2010 by ellocogringo

Iteration

The non-iteration nation

Mr Johnny got me thinking about circular reasoning. He used the word iterative. I like that. I did a search on circular thinking and came up with two totally different, mutual exclusive meanings. One that of the “science” of logic. which describes it as pathological. This view is total bullshit. The other view is diffuse, depending on circumstances. I will call this iterative.

Consider the following concepts, do not analyze them, that strips the meaning out. Just consider them. They all describe the same concept from different perspectives and different words are used.

According to circular thinking, it’s less useful to worry about how problems got started than to see them as reciprocal patterns of interaction, which can be corrected in the present, regardless of what happened in the past – parenting

It is not necessary that you hear and identify the notes you play, but rather that you play the right note written in the music at the right time.- music

You Cannot just “Name it and Claim it” you Need to know How the System Works – bible study

These patterns are examined to show whether certain patterns are viewed with positive or negative associations – hand signing

Assumptions can take you round and round and leave you where you started. To break out of circular thinking, we need real alternatives to our assumptions -turnarounds

If the plane’s flying backwards, reverse the pitch of the prop – eLG

People think backwards – Dennett

Ya gotta work the logic both ways – eLG

Consider “we eat sugar because it tastes good”, sounds reasonable. rational in fact, top down, serial, plug in whichever term you prefer. An Aristotelian view.

Now let’s work the logic both ways. “sugar tastes good because we eat it” totally irrational. That’s true, a null A view. But let’s assume that it is valid if irrational. Then we see that sugar is a good source of energy. Our brains became wired to give a pleasurable sensation when we eat sugar. That’s because we’re omnivores. Sugar has no taste to carnivores. Charlie Chimp had rotten fruit in his diet. We gained this insight by applying bottom up logic to the top down statement.

So, I posit that circular reasoning occurs in the left mind, which accepts no new data. mental masturbation. Round and round we go. Iterative thinking occurs in the right mind, which aggressively accumulates and correlates new data. So the right mind iterates, i.e. resolves an issue, sets the “shortcut” on the right algorithm, then goes around again to reassess the unresolved data using the new “shortcut” as an assumption. This process repeats until all the issues are resolved. An upticking of wisdom, to be stored as knowledge. The iterim results are set as a “shortcut” on the left algorithm as “best answer to date” If this function is shut down, the person is an idiot (in the clinical sense) incapable of innovation. Unfortunately, the majority of western civilization.

Consider the cash register, we press the 1 key and the + key and the 1 key and =. the answer pops up as 2. So we assume that pressing these keys in this sequence “proves” that 1+1=2. If we work the logic both ways we see that the leaf that pops up that says 2 is dependent on which keys are pressed. It doesn’t matter what is printed on the keys or leaf. This “proof” is an artifact.

The Aristotelian brain fart. A traffic circle with no roads in or out. A freeway with no on or off ramps. Round and round we go, and where we stop everyone knows. We’ve got a hurricane blowing through the windmills of our minds. Damn it ted, you’ve infected my thinking, somehow a post just doesn’t seem complete without a hurricane in it somewhere.

The animation at the top is really good for what I’m trying to describe. There’s an animation for your “abductive engine” Mr Johnny. That’s the way it works. Damn, that ouija pusher sure scoots around, doesn’t it?

Bottom up

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2010 by ellocogringo

Bottom

Up

DrB-19 09/12/2009

top down, bottom up, psyche, logos, mythos, einstein, yin, yang, cosmos, ether, aether

You had asked why I wasn’t content to let people think in whatever way they were comfortable with. I have no problem with reductionist thinking, I have a problem with using reductionist thinking EXCLUSIVELY for scientific inquiry. It doesn’t discover new concepts. Bottom up thinking is dismissed as hunches or guesses, not as the intuition it is. It leads to absurdities like psychology, for instance or voodoo. Top Down is a shortcut method of thinking. It precludes NEW concepts. This is the way an animal thinks. It can only rearrange and categorize existing known concepts. It is what makes people dumb. There is more, but that’s enough.
**************************************************************************

Consider: Scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.
Hypothesis:1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena.
An hypothesis is nothing more than a proposed conclusion, a pre-supposition.. (a guess) So essentially you start with a conclusion, then try to prove it false or true and declare it true based on the results. Thus it is circular in nature. Perfectly suitable for making decisions based on “knowns”. Consider the nature of knowledge. One perspective is there are things you know, things you don’t know, things you know you don’t know, AND THINGS YOU KNOW THAT AIN’T SO. IE part of this logic tree depends on belief and not fact.
**************************************************************************

Consider: DNA. For years geneticists had been studying the genetic structure as if DNA were total and complete fact. Then, here come epigenitics. Oops! The concept of DNA was WRONG. IE they knew something that “wasn’t so”. DNA was never “tested” for validity. (and it CAN’T be tested using the scientific method) It was only true AS FAR AS IT WENT. It was incomplete. It was a n-truth and not a p-truth. The scientific method could never have caught this (and didn’t, the discovery was serendipitous). Now if I’m a plumber, and don’t care, accepting DNA as a p-truth is fine. BUT if I’m a geneticist doing research, using the scientific method is absurd.
**************************************************************************

Consider: Ardi, the newly discovered hominid fossil. For years anthropologists had been working under the assumption than man evolved from chimps. Seems right. WRONG!!! Chimps evolved from hominids. It was an n-truth, not a p-truth. (This is awkward, I’m going to have to change all my Charlie Chimp references to Ardi Australopithecus Africanus, doesn’t really roll of the tongue does it?)
**************************************************************************

Consider: relativity, for years physicists have been doing math on the assumption that time was real, and not a mental construct. And they still are. The are making another false assumption that math dictates physics. It does not. The math is not the physics. It only describes it. If reality and math disagree, the math is wrong, not reality.

In short, when using the scientific method the question “what if they’re all full of shit” is never asked.
**************************************************************************

Consider: Heylighen, he is using bottom thinking to look at the problems of “gifted people” IE he is gathering (and verifying) the data THEN will see where it leads. He doesn’t start with the conclusion. (gifted people are bi-polar manic depressive) He will come up with a conclusion which is “less wrong” than psychology’s.
**************************************************************************
How did this happen? Why have scientists forgotten how to ask why? Let’s look at the educational system. What is it’s purpose? To educate? WRONG. The purpose of the educational system to get the students to perform well on tests (to get increased funding, prestige, gravitas) in a limited time frame. Thus beliefs (n-truths) are presented as (and accepted as) facts. This is what I call the lattice, a block on challenging dogma. Thus the concept of reductionist thinking as being the only valid method of inquiry is carried by the students into life. (This is what I call dumb). If the issue is important, dogma must be challenged. It’s as if you cut out the right hemisphere. My education was somewhat unique, most easily summed up by quoting Bro. Max “We can’t teach you, we can only show you how to learn”. This goes to purpose. The purpose of the Benedictine order is to enlighten students, not to get them to pass tests. Big difference. This is only one of the impediments to understanding.
**************************************************************************

When listening to someone, an alarm bell frequently goes off (alarmingly frequently) “this guy is full of shit”. (he’s an idiot) I interpret this as the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere being in disagreement. The wire to this alarm bell has been cut in most people and the input is dismissed. In a sense you could view the right hemisphere as a bullshit detector. It flags discrepancies in the logic of top-down and bottom up thinking.

This goes to the heart of my problem, people assume that if they don’t understand me it is because I’m crazy, when the truth is they don’t understand me because they’re dumb.
Read the attached file by Paul Grobstein. (Getting it less wrong, the brains way) He’s right. (he’s not an idiot) non-idiots are depressingly few in this society. Paul Grobstein