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

 

cascade

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 5, 2010 by ellocogringo

Cascade

The problem in using top down thinking is the cascade effect. The unintended consequences. The treatment of a problem as if it existed in a vacume without a connection to the greater whole. It has a multiplier effect. A built in positive feedback loop. It is the insane belief that we can resolve a problem if we do more of what caused it in the first place

For Instance the solution to a societal problem is seen as oppression. If it doesn’t work (and it won’t) even more oppression is applied until the situation spins out of control.

In physics, the solution is seen as analysis. If this doesn’t resolve the issue (and it won’t) even more analysis is applied until you end up with bizarre byzantine labryniths of illogic that only a lunatic can understand.

It’s like a bank. If you overdraw your account they want more of what they already know you ain’t got none of. How insane is that?

It’s like taking a pixel out of the above graphic and trying to determine what’s going to happen without considering the inter-connectness. It is the pattern that must be figured out, the relationship between the cell and the whole.

In this case these rules are

  1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
  2. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
  3. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
  4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

Even in this case figuring that out by looking at only one cell is impossible. You may increase the odds of prediction with some formula which idiots view as progress, approaching understanding. But it is illusory. If you look at the connectedness, however, it is possible to figure out the rules. THEN, you can set the shortcut. You can say “AHA, I’ve seen that, that’s Gonway’s game of life the rules are 1,2,3,4. That’s a gosper gun by the way. When the rules are figured out there won’t be any of this percentages shit. You will know EXACTLY what the cell is going to do.

The patterns playing out are determined by initial conditions. which in this case is a Gosper Gun. setting these cells true will result in the performance of the graphic above left. Here’s some more if you’re curious. wiki

Here’s another day and night. This is a big one. The anotated rules are here D&N. Try figuring this sucker out just looking at one cell. Lot’s a luck. Look at the one on top, it’s got 3 variables. (4 dimensional mathematically) But it’s still doable if you look at the connectness.

This is what I mean by working the logic both ways. The aggregate and accumulate reciprocal relationship between the individual cells and the whole. Changing any one pixel will yield “a disturbance in the force” (the pattern ain’t gonna be the same)

Chariot

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , on July 4, 2010 by ellocogringo


Return to About

Another way to view this is as a chariot race. The harness has room for two horses. One is fast, but weak. The other is slow but strong. They make a perfect team, complementing each other. A perfect balance. You can call one yin if you want and the other yang. Or Mythos and Logos. Or maybe Tao and Plato. or top down and bottom up. Or quantum and cosmos. It doesn’t matter, they’re all the same thing. In unison these two horses can lead you around the track. You can call the stadium god, if you want. Or the great mysterious. or the “one mind”, or the universe, or the ether. That doesn’t matter either, these are only words.

But the track isn’t smooth and level as we were led to believe. The lanes are zigzagged, and there are random explosions going off, war, unemployment, disease, accidents. The yiners have hobbled yang and the yangers have hobbled yin. Both spinning around on the track in opposite directions. Idiots are going full speed in the wrong direction driven on by the assholes. It looks like a demolition derby. It’s not supposed to be like this.

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, conn a ship, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve an equation, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. “ – Robert Heinlein

And if you get a pause in the frenetic activity, you can reflect and realize

“There is no finish line, there is only the race”

And me? I’m Walter, I’ve named my horses el Loco Gringo and walt. I’ve got a full team and it has done well. The essence of me

walt

 



Square Earth

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 30, 2010 by ellocogringo

Square

Earth

*****************************

Thanx to Mr. Ted

we westerners, with all our clever logicalness, are getting very fancy in our answers and still totally miss what’s really going on. political shows on television are amazingly full of energy over bullshit arguments. what are they grappling with? maybe ‘differences’, the ghosts of departed quantities.

we believe in the past because we believe in absolute space. (i know, … this is generalization). not only that but we believe that space is rectangular. if we walk along any one of the three orthogonal axis, we ‘go away’ in ‘one direction’ and never come back. if we have a clock with us, we say that our footsteps that we laid down behind us are always in the past.

but we live on earth, on the surface of a sphere and so our footsteps (actions) taken in the past are also in front of us. ‘my future is my past’ is a line from an old blues song where the broken-hearted jilted lover can’t let go of his old flame and hopes that they could get back together in the future. only in absolute, rectangular space do you leave your past actions totally behind you. on the surface of the earth, a boat that circles the world will bump into the garbage he jettisoned off the back of his ship months ago.

poincare said we should think about ‘topology’ when we inquire into ‘complexity’ rather than ‘cause’. imagine if the earth had a very small circumference so that we could walk around it more quickly (this is just to make something that already happens ‘pop out’ a bit more clearly). and supposing the earth was crowded with circumnavigating walkers and the surface was soft and muddy (to better visualize the amerindian ‘tread lightly ethic’). everyone’s footprints would be woven beneath and over everyone elses. the earth would have a ‘topography’ (landscape) made of footprints. the hills and valleys, the bumps and potholes would be ‘made of footsteps’. we would be the co-evolvers of the landscape we were included in. if we ‘acknowledged’ this, would we not be like the wildgeese and let the shapes that we co-tease out of the mud orchestrate our behaviour? would we not step so as to smooth the hard rims of potholes as they developed, round off the bumps and cultivate gently rising and descending paths on the big hill like bulges ad valley like holes.

what would inform our experience as we participated in this co-evolution would not be like conventional thought because we would ‘do it first’ and try to make sense of it later (later we might form an architectural committee and give names to all the features and argue about ‘their’ development plans). initially, we would quite naturally step so as to improve the aesthetic/harmonious form of the land. that is, spatial harmonies naturally orchestrate our individual and collective behaviour. if the wildgeese are capable of this, why not man? (all things seem to be in the service of cultivating balance, even revolutionaries).

BUT! … in our western culture, everyone, INSTEAD, wants to ‘make a difference’. that’s what the chancellor says at university graduation commencement ceremonies; ‘go out there and make a difference’. every day the western person asks himself how much of the difference between the way things are in the present and the way they were in the immediate past has their causal-agent ‘john henry’ on it, whether they judge it to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

but the co-evolving topography on the small-circumference planet could not be split down into ‘who did what’. in the same way, the mutually orbiting bodies in the solar system don’t know who is contributing what because they are moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence and that’s not solvable for three or more bodies (the ‘three body problem’ that poincare continued to work on till he died has never been solved, but poincare figured it could be the foundation for an entirely new and different ‘system’).

the ‘topology’ (geometric relationships) of people walking on a spherical surface such as our planet is the same regardless of the circumference. not until the radius of curvature goes to infinity does it no longer happen that our past and future are bound up in the present.

the topography we are co-evolving, that we are included in, is taking form very quietly. it is like john lennon’s imagery; ‘life is what happens while we’re busy making other plans’.

it is like the dog that did not bark in the night; its silence is deafening.

ted

Consider

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 27, 2010 by ellocogringo

Muse

On

the following paper by John R Platt

 

“Why should there be such rapid advances in some fields and not in others? I think the usual explanations that we tend to think of – such as the tractability of the subject, or the quality or education of the men drawn into it, or the size of research contracts – are important but inadequate. I have begun to believe that the primary factor in scientific advance is an intellectual one. These rapidly moving fields are fields where a particular method of doing scientific research is systematically used and taught, an accumulative method of inductive inference that is so effective that I think it should be given the name of “strong inference.” I believe it is important to examine this method, its use and history and rationale, and to see whether other groups and individuals might learn to adopt it profitably in their own scientific and intellectual work. “

“When whole groups of us begin to concentrate like that, I believe we may see the molecular-biology phenomenon repeated over and over again, with order-of-magnitude increases in the rate of scientific understanding in almost every field.”

Or the following paper by Paul Grobstein

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/lesswrong/lesswrong/

“People in our culture, by and large, tend to presume that someone, somewhere knows what is “right,” and that each individual’s task is either to be that particular someone or to work as hard as they can to learn from that someone what “right” is … the mindset long predates science as a social activity, but …science certainly encourages it, and so it is appropriate that science should contribute to correcting it … In an enormous variety of distinct fields of inquiry the same general pattern is becoming clear: there is no such thing as “right,” the very concept needs to be replaced with “progressively less wrong.” The

difference is far from semantic. “Right” is measured by proximity to some fixed idea, “progressively less wrong” by how far people have gotten from where they started.”

What they are talking about is bottom up thinking. There is a built in logic flaw in (most) people’s brain. I call it the brain fart. This flaw prevents people from understanding that what we see is only our perception of reality. It is not reality. It is how our mind makes sense of reality. The perspective doesn’t matter yin/yang, top down/bottom up, reductionist/constructivist etc. These are all inside the skull. In nature, this duality does not exist, it just is.

So what’s happening? We have two cognitive minds, each with it’s own perception.

I’ll try yin/yang.

Yin (plural) are the right minds possible interpretations as determined by processing through a parallel weighted Boolean network. AKA bottom up, constructivist, female, connectedness

Yang (singular) is the left minds interpretation as determined by processing through a serial binary network. AKA top down, reductionist, male, individuation

Taiji (balance) is achieved when the outputs of the two processes are not inconsistent. AKA centering

in the west, the yang is dominant, the Aristotelian brain fart (social imprinting)

in the east, the yin is dominant, the Taoist brain fart (cultural imprinting)

I can’t get it any simpler than that.

Inclusional DataMining pTruthnTruth Multiplism Thoughts Idiots

idiots

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2010 by ellocogringo

Idiots

Back to Top/Down, Bottom/Up


DrB-07 The problem I have always had with communicating with un-centered people is that whenever the topic turned to soft subjects their thinking became silly, if not insane. Before I recently heard the terms reductionist and constructionist thinking I used the terms top down and bottom up thinking. Math, for instance, is hard. 2+3 = 5, always has, always will. If you are trying to understand a frog, you cut it up and try to understand the pieces. You are dealing with a known. Top down works great here. This only addresses the how. If on the other hand you want to know why, it is necessary to take a more holistic view. Consideration must be given to evolution, environment, ecosystem, niche, mating, food, sex, competition, dangers etc. Top down doesn’t address these issues. Bottom up works here.

In psychology, for instance, there is no frog to cut up. It is an unknown. There is no way you can know what combination of events has led to a particular behavior pattern. Each person is unique, with his own unique environment, hopes, religion, education, experience, dreams, triumphs, failures etc. It is not possible to determine which combination of events caused a particular behavior pattern. It is insane to try. Yet people do. This results in simple concepts exploding into byzantine labyrinths of illogic. Psychology with it’s id, ego, sub-conscious, psychosis’, neurosis’, and all kinds of weird concepts made up to give the illusion of understanding.

Take for instance centering. The concept is simple; “me”, That lone two letter word says all there is to know about centering in bottom up thinking. It is an identity. Integrally implied in the concept of the “me identity” is awareness of self, (I like me, I want to stay me, I don’t want to be anyone else) etc. Even the lowliest life form has a me. ie, Even bacteria are centered. Yet when top down thinking is applied to this concept it explodes into self worth, esteem, pride, moral compass, religion, ethics, philosophy, spirituality etc. which explodes into libraries full of self help books.


Back to the un-centered, their “me” has been displaced, overwritten, co-opted, whatever. It’s still there, always has been, always will be. To me, their mind has become “super tangled”. (If I understand your analogy correctly) They are, to me, insane. Their mind is working against itself. They are scary.

As to the project, oblique verbiage with a visual image should get it past the left hemisphere into the right hemisphere, bypassing the reductionist overlay. There are plenty of self help books, all good stuff, no point in regurgitating them. Assuming a 52 card deck, that’s 26 pages, (both sides) with a 4 page intro. That’s 30 pages for a p-book ($3) or free for an e-book. A physical deck is $13, free for virtual deck.

Fortunately, the mind is a simple thing conceptually, and bottom up thinking works well here.

There is a plethora of data out there, a cornucopia of riches that could solve most of the problems of mankind and allow him to reach his full potential. It just needs to be collated.

Consider the video below. The bacteria is centered. What else can you say? Why do you people make it so complicated?

BacteriaChase

Multiplism

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

Multiplism

……

“Wonder and wander are like ben wa balls, whereever on goes the other follows” – el Loco Gringo

You asked where I was going with these examples on time. Dunno. The truth is yet to be determined. When alice asked the cheshire cat for directions, he replied “If you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t much matter which road you take.” What I do know is that the establishment “TRUTH” is wrong, in regard to the general theory of relativity. What other truth would you have me pursue? If I knew the answer I would lose interest. I was just pointing out that “time” is an artifact. It’s not real. But what then is time interpreting? My current hypothesis is that it is a vector (vibration) in the 4th dimension (dudecohydron).

I ran across this website researching the concept. If nothing else read the first paragraph in which he speaks of the idiots in science and their inability to conceptualize. he mentions 3 giants in science, although i’d toss in heisenberg. The idiots even disregard the Einstein, who caught his own mistake. These are definitely non-idiots. (this would only be interesting in examining the logic flaws.) walt

I think this guy is describing what I call top down and bottom up thinking. He describes the mind as having two “personae” The “artist” who paints the picture that the “audience” who views and interprets it. I’ll have to read it again, words get in the way, But I suspect he’s right. In Jill Taylors video, she describes forced entry into the right hemisphere (bottom up thinking) because of a stroke in her left hemisphere. (gotta watch that video, a stroke of genius). She describes the experience as overpowering, completely overwhelming her. I suppose it would seem that way to someone who has never been there. Mystics call it nirvana, a transcendence to a higher level. It’s what I call the “self”. (I don’t know if i’ve mentioned it before but it’s capacious, every experience, every concept, every emotion, the whole world as i have perceived it is in there. in random order} She relates that the left hemisphere reaches into this cornucopia of data and pulls out relevant data and organizes it. Exactly. She also relates an explosion of understanding, creativity and insight. Exactly. David Sloan Wilson, (director EVOS) in his intro video, expersses his frustration, even anger directed at people who are incapable of constructionist thinking. Yup! I can relate. I call them idiots to their face. (I’ve noticed that, every time I inform someone they are an idiot, all the love seems to get sucked out of the room). Makes me think of bi-polar: “exagerated sense of own cognitive abilities alternating with depression. Shifting thought patterns. Paranoia, lacking social skills.” I wonder how many da Vincis are institutionalized, shot up with dopazine? Oh well, back to my curmudgeonhood. walt

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/~pgrobste/pragmatism.html#sciprag

Getting It Less Wrong, The Brain’s Way:
Science, Pragmatism, and Multiplism
Paul Grobstein
Department of Biology
Bryn Mawr College
The following is a working draft (November, 2001) of an essay which appears elsewhere as Paul Grobstein (2003) “Getting It Less Wrong, the Brain’s Way: Science, Pragmatism, and Multiplism” IN Ritivoi, A.D. (ed) Interpretation and Its Objects: Studies in the Philosophy of Michael Krausz, New York: Rodopi, pp 153-166.

The draft exists as a single html file whose sections are internally linked and can be reached by clicking on titles from the following directory:

Introduction
Science and “Pragmatic” Multiplism
The Brain as Inquirer
The Painter and the Audience
Tacit Processing and the I-Function
The Existence of Multiple Admissible Interpretations in Perception
Ambiguity and Reality
Science and Pragmatic Mulitplism More Completely
Pragmatic multiplism, multiplism, and culture
Acknowledgements and Notes
Introduction

“One’s conduct of inquiry is largely shaped by one’s answer to the question of whether there must always be a single admissible interpretation … Must there be a single right interpretation for such cultural entities as works of art, literature, music, or other cultural phenomenon?”

Michael Krausz (1)

In both fields [neurobiology and developmental biology], there has been some tendency for investigators to presume that a complex process is “designed” to have a particular, single, and well-defined outcome, and hence to search for some equivalent of a cog and wheel machine which yields that outcome for particular inputs and starting conditions … this can cause problems if … the nature of [the systems being investigated] is such as to put a premium not on uniformity but on diversity …

Paul Grobstein (2)

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.

Albert Einstein (3)

Einstein’s assertion that “physical concepts” are not “uniquely determined by the external world’ may be surprising to people whose experience with science is largely “from the outside”. It is, however, an operational reality of science itself, one which has, I believe, wider implications extending well into cultural and philosophical realms. Being professionally a “scientist”, rather than a “humanist” or philosopher, I will confine myself in this essay largely to science and how it works, and to considerations of brain function which relate to that. The context for doing so is, however, very much Krausz’ above-quoted assertion (with which I agree wholeheartedly) and question (for which I believe the discussion of science and brain function is relevant). Toward the end of this essay, I will sketch some directions which I think warrant further exploration in connection with issues of the interpretation of cultural entities, as opposed to “material” ones, and of the “conduct of inquiry” more generally.

Science and “Pragmatic” Multiplism

Einstein ought properly to have said “Physical concepts are, as best I can make sense of things from my experiences, free creations of the human mind …”. I presume the phrase added to be so obvious to Einstein that he felt no need to include it. But, in the present context, it is important to make explicit that, to a scientist, understandings are always “summaries of experiences” and have no greater (or lesser) significance than that. One important corollary that follows from science as “making sense of experience” is that all scientific understandings, whether they are called concepts or laws or theories or hypotheses, have in common the same validity within their respective realms of observations made. They effectively summarize existing observations (and make testable predictions about future observations). All scientific understandings have as well the same fundamental vulnerability to being “wrong”, when tested by further observations.

Data Mining

Posted in TD/BU on June 8, 2010 by ellocogringo

Data Mining

Data Mining is a useful model for explaining bottom up thinking. It seeks out and makes squishy correlations between seemingly unrelated data. (Nexialism) Using this model the computer operator is the conscious (left mind) the computer is the sub-conscious, (right mind) (data storage and analysis) and the computer screen is the interface (GUI) The Aristotelian Brain Fart occurs when the operator confuses the picture on the screen for the data, which in this case is ASCII.

IE the computer screen shows an interpreted sub-set of the data. But you must ask a question (curiosity) for the computer to respond (insight, intuition) with dreams, or symbols that it puts on the screen. A person who shows this ability in front of a psychiatrist is called Bipolar Manic/Depressive and the plug is pulled on the computer with dopazine or smarticide. In the mind this process is transparant to the user.

This is what is actually happening in the computer (right mind) the left mind interprets this and puts a picture on the screen that you can make sense of. What this interpretation looks like depends on the software installed. (wetware(imprinting + learning)) The data range being analyzed determines the tunnel.

Just to be complete, I’ll show a matrix of the Taoist Brain Fart. I’m being facious of course. The mind isn’t to the point of deciphering the symbols coming from the right mind. This is the Brain Fart Interface. If you’re curious about this here’s some freeware stuff you could play with. Data Mining

How is this used? Let’s say for instance you’re a cop watching a house with a lot of toing and froing going on. You suspect drugs but you don’t know. So you do a data mining operation on his communications, finances and whatever else you can think of. You may find a node of intensity in another person so you follow this node. What you may end up with is a diagram presented in one of the following formats showing a “master node”. This in and of itself doesn’t show drug activity but only a lot of communication between the master node and a bunch of mini nodes which each have a bunch of micro nodes. This is still squishy information but you know where to look.

One form of output is the skitter graph. found here White Lite, Black Light

About halfway down the page is a animated gif showing the relationships between different ISP’s

“Let’s start by looking at an impressive technical and aesthetic feat: the “Skitter Graph” by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (Caida) – an academic offshoot of the military-industrial complex, based in the city of San Diego. This map shows a record of peering sessions between some 12,500 “autonomous systems” (basically equivalent to Internet Service Providers, or ISPs)”


Another output type is found here Blogsphere

The highly connected area below centre is the socio/political community. Above and to the right is the heart of the technical blogosphere with BoingBoing being the brightest node.

The following is from Oracle, the premier data mining technology. Although quite primitive compared to the mind, it is still pretty awesome.

http://www.oracle.com/index.html

This graph is a network found here. Generally, data mining (AKA bottom up thinking) is the process of analyzing data from different perspectives and summarizing it into useful information – information that can be used to increase revenue, cuts costs, or both. Data mining software is one of a number of analytical tools for analyzing data. It allows users to analyze data from many different dimensions or angles, categorize it, and summarize the relationships identified. Technically, data mining is the process of finding correlations or patterns among dozens of fields in large relational databases called data warehouses, ( AKA right mind)

Supervised Learning has the goal of predicting a value for a particular characteristic, or attribute that describes some behavior. For example: (AKA curiosity) The attribute being predicted is called the Target Attribute.

Unsupervised Learning has the goal of discovering relationships and patterns rather than of determining a particular value. That is, there is no target attribute. (AKA sub-conscious free running)

Examples S1, S2, S3 illustrate Binary Classification – the model predicts one of two target values for each case (that is, places each case into one of two classes, thus the term Classification).

Example S4 illustrates Multiclass Classification – the model predicts one of several target values for each case.

Example S5 illustrates Regression – the model predicts a specific target value for each case from among (possibly) infinitely many values.

Example S6 illustrates One-class Classification, also known as Anomaly

Detection – the model trains on data that is homogeneous, that is all cases are in one class, then determines if a new case is similar to the cases observed, or is somehow “abnormal” or “suspicious”.

Example U1 illustrates Clustering – the model defines segments, or “clusters” of a population, then decides the likely cluster membership of each new case.

Example U2 illustrates Associations – the model determines which cases are likely to be found together.

Caveats

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 by ellocogringo

Caveats

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

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 statementcan range between 0 and 1 and is not constrained to the two truth values of classicpropositional 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.

I recently became interested in the aboriginal framework of reasoning. I have heard is 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. The Beast OPL Walt

Polymorphism

Posted in TD/BU with tags , , , , , , on June 27, 2009 by ellocogringo

Genotype 

HOCM

(Hypertropic Obstructive CardioMyopathy)

This, I feel, is the problem in using top down thinking exclusively to look at a problem. Using data mining
techniques like Oracle could scan existing data, to find less obvious relationships. (bottom up). The structure of the health profession, however, precludes this. Viewed from this perspective my problem MAY be genotype DD with HOCM, diabetes, high blood pressure, hypertension and suseptability to statins. etc being symptoms of this condition. Or….. I could be full of shit, I am crazy don’t you know?

Using top down thinking (scientific method) HOCM is classed as a disease. The causes are shown in percentages. The same is true of diabetes, high blood pressure, statin susceptibility, high pulse rate etc. This is a reduced set of reality. If instead, one discards the counterfeit concept of HOCM and looks at this in a bottom up mode, one can corellate the incidence of genotype DD. Thus HOCM is shown to be a condition, a result of, a series of “symptoms” caused by genotype DD. They are confusing cause and effect. A simple screening for genotype would reveal this susceptibility and the cause of the problem could be addressed, rather than the symptoms being “band-aided”. People think backwards. Epigenetics shows great promise in treatment.

It would appear that the polymorphic gene genotype DD is associated with many health problems, including, but
not limited to high pulse rate and blood pressure, diabetes, HOCM and statin susceptibility. One study shows a
100% relationship between genotype DD and HOCM. (I wonder about Dd and dd) Gene replacement, cortisol and Perindopril are given as possible treatments.

The following is perhaps the most comprehensive study. (PLOS) Excerpt

Left ventricular mass is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.11, 27, 58 Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is primarily caused by chronic hypertension, but other nonhemodynamic phenomena, including genetic factors, appear to play a role. The association of the ACE polymorphism with increased risk of MI in patients with few other risk factors for coronary events has raised the question of a possible role of this polymorphism in the pathogenesis of LVH. Schunkert et al59 studied the association of ACE genotype with LVH in a Caucasian population and reported that the DD genotype is an independent risk factor for development of LVH in normotensive men (OR 2.6) but not in women. The positive association of DD genotype and LVH was confirmed by Iwai et al,60 but with no sex difference. Prasad et al61 suggested that the effect of hypertension on left ventricular mass is achieved only in the presence of the D allele. In this context, it is important that patients with the DD genotype have increased cardiac ACE and Ang II concentrations, and the effects of local RAS activity may be more important than circulating RAS. There are multiple recognized mechanisms for deleterious effects of Ang II, such as induction of hypertrophy in noninfarcted areas, direct toxic effect on myocardial cells, ventricular dilatation and remodeling, stimulation of fibroblast proliferation, promotion of smooth muscle hyperplasia, endothelial dysfunction, increase of left ventricular afterload, and impairment of diastolic relaxation, in addition to the main effects of vasoconstriction, coronary artery constriction, and activation of the sympathetic nervous system.11, 27, 54, 62, 63 Indirect evidence is again provided by ACE inhibition studies; left ventricular systolic function is improved in postinfarct patients by ACE inhibitors.63 Regression of LVH after therapy with ACE inhibitors is far more significant than that seen in conjunction with a comparable reduction in blood pressure by other antihypertensive agents.27 The DD genotype was shown to be associated with a 5% lower ejection fraction in postinfarct patients, but not in noninfarct patients, leading to the conclusion that the influence of the ACE polymorphism on left ventricular function is modulated by infarction status and coronary anatomy.63

Found here> http://jmd.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/105

The following are exerpts from various studies. (PubMed)

Several genes with risk for heart disease have been identified, such as the ACE genotype DD. Replacement gene therapy as well as use of promoter-specific drugs to act on genetic regulatory elements will encompass the future treatment of cardiovascular disease.

changes in heart rate from baseline were +1.2 beats/min for DD subjects

CONCLUSIONS: The ACE DD genotype is associated with an increased risk of MI and CHD in patients with heterozygous FH or FDB.

The DD genotype appears to be an important factor which increases hypertrophic myocardial reactivity to pressure overload.

CONCLUSION: Genotype DD appeared most unfavourable in relation to left ventricular myocardial hypertrophy. Its carriers had the thickest right ventricular myocardium,

The DD genotype of the ACE-gene is associated with an increased left ventricular mass and with a significantly higher prevalence of eccentric left ventricular hypertrophy, when compared to ID genotype.

These articles explore the effects of environment (culture, imprinting etc) on the “setting” of DNA to effect inheritable disorders. (including genotype DD)

http://scitechstory.com/2010/03/03/can-culture-change-the-genome/

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050113;jsessionid=81B65D30301522DE0C983B419BA71124