Top Down/Bottom Up

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 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

Pair a dimes

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.

Protected: Squee

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

Password:

Wanna

Wisdom, the neuron that wants to grow up to be a brain. Negentropy is the charactistic of the universe that provides this wanna. All god’s chillens got wanna. This is nowhere more evident that the neuron which self-organizes when given the chance and a favorable environment. But for this to happen an unfolding must have wanna to be an atom, an atom must have wanna to be a molecule, a molecule must have wanna to be a cell, and a cell must have wanna to be a neuron. And the neuron must have wanna to be a brain. And a brain has wanna to be what? To be one with the universe. In RatBrain watch this wanna at work. The local power ego which at first glance appears to be exclusionary, turns out to be not so exclusionary after all. The molecule wanna be included, and life happens. Ain’t synergy nice? It is, after all, all the same thing.

“Harald C. Ott, a researcher now at Massachusetts General Hospital, took all the cells off a rat heart, leaving only a framework behind. His team then put rat stem cells onto this scaffold, whereupon the cells self-organized and the heart began to beat. Turns out life happens, and we are just learning the rules on how to program it.” – Foreign Policy Newsletter

WOW!!! Ain’t this weird? Negentropy reigns. Do the word Ratbrain2 ring a bell?

Read full article here> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4843

Here him here> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcLKbJs3xk

A quality I have long used in hiring is gottawanna. The candidate gotta wanna. He must have connectnedness. He must be normal. It made life easy. Show them where their office is, and they would make themselves usefu.

Wisdom for centuries has been a religious or philosophical concept that varies somewhat by culture. But Jeste tells ScientificAmerican.com that there is reason to believe that it’s rooted in neurobiology. He and Meeks pored through medical literature, locating 10 papers that defined wisdom. Based on commonalities in the research, the two proposed that wisdom is made up of the behaviors that reflect the good of the group, pragmatism, emotional balance, self-understanding, tolerance and the ability to deal with ambiguity.

“If you look at it in this fashion, it makes sense to have a balance among these regions to lead to something akin to wisdom,” he says. “You need cold, calculating rationality but also emotional sociableness. You need to have rewards for what you do and punishments for what you don’t do and conflict detection and resolution.”

Jeste and Meeks concede that some might call their conclusions reductionistic because they based their “map” not on the idea that wisdom is a single trait, but a collection of attributes. But Jeste said that similarities between how wisdom was portrayed thousands of years ago in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu scripture) and in the West today — as well as the tale of Phineas Gage, a railway worker whose allegedly wise attributes such as amiability and good judgment were said to vanish after a spike penetrated his left frontal lobe — “makes you think it’s not a cultural phenomenon but biologically consistent.”

Cloud Mind

Cloud

It is interesting how the society and the internet mimic each other. You could almost picture Google and the other search engines acting at the axon (perception) level and the links acting at the dendrite (interpretation, learning) level. Consider the blogroll, wherein like minded sites are set, each with it’s own network. Negentropy. With the individual computer at the neuron level and the internet at the brain level, with search engines as random co-relators. For a particular field of interest, at some point. it will just be necessary to find a couple of like-minded sites and link to them. Instead of searching for information, the information will “search” for you. “build it and they will come” – Field of dreams. And it works, they do indeed come. From the most amazing places. Places I would never have thought to search. Just follow the trackbacks, and there they are. How odd. How very odd. Instead of looking for “people like me” I put my interest on the net and “people like me” find me. neat!

The society/individual cloud mind, however, is not doing so well. That’s why I picked the stormy cloud. This is another unfinished post. I don’t know where it’s going, but it’s trucking right along, getting there in a hurry. Singularity? Social consciousness.? Cosmic mind? Should be fun. Maybe we can get there before the hyper-males shut it down.

The key to appropriate and effective application of the self-construct is to develop a healthy self, rather than to eliminate the self entirely. Eradication of the self is form of nihilism that leads to an inability to function in the world. That is not something that Buddhist or neuroscientists advocate. So what is a healthy self? In an individual, a healthy self is a construct that accurately represents past, present and projected future internal and external state, and that is highly self-aware, rational but not overly so, adaptable, respectful of external systems and other beings, and open to learning and changing to fit new situations. The same is true for a healthy collective self. However, most individuals today do not have healthy selves — they have highly delluded, unhealthy self-constructs. This in turn is reflected in the higher-order self-constructs of the groups, organizations and communities we build.

Supercomputers built from subcomputers were invented 50 years ago. Back then clusters of tightly integrated specialized computer chips in close proximity were designed to work on one kind of task, such as simulations. This was known as cluster computing. In recent years, we’ve created supercomputers composed of loosely integrated individual computers not centralized in one building, but geographically distributed over continents and designed to be versatile and general purpose. This later supercomputer is called grid computing because the computation is served up as a utility to be delivered anywhere on the grid, like electricity. It is also called cloud computing because the tally of the exact component machines is dynamic and amorphous – like a cloud. The actual contours of the grid or cloud can change by the minute as machines come on or off line.

Paradigm

 

Truth, Belief, Myth

When I started this post, I thought of Truth. Anybody seen the Crucible? The Salem Witch Trials? They’re still going on you know? 3500 cases nationwide. One was just finished about two months ago. The witch was acquited. eLG struck again and got revenge. The real story of Salem is interesting also. Much of it is untold. The proctors had tied the “witches” up behind a wagon and were dragging them around the township. The men in Salisbury challanged the proctors rescued the women, tied the proctors up behind the wagon and stampeded the horses. At this point the Governor sent a representative to find out WTF. The husbands of the “witches” went to Salisbury to get their wives and were told “Piss off, gentle persons, when thee can defend thy wives thee may retreive them, till then thee may jerk off, jerk offs. Come back and we’ll get meideval on your sorry arses” (something like that) Amish Paradise

Anyhow, back to the main point. What exactly is truth? Turns out it is different for each person. Each individual is unique, with his own triumphs and trageties. Dogma is TRUTH. But there are many truths. So what is my truth?

The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. A myth, on the other hand is an unprovable or implausible belief. Thus a belief may be either a truth or a myth. For instance, England is to me a belief and a truth (been there, done that, bought the T-shirt) As is Germany, Chad, France, Singapore etc. On the other hand Gibralter, Columbia, Tasmania are beliefs (never been there) there is a remote possibility they are myths. Atlantis, Wu, Eldorado, Valhalla, are non-beliefs with a remote possibility that they are not myths. With this in mind, my belief system follows;
True – ANN, unANN,
Belief – Lattice, Taboo, Centering
Myth – psychology, sociology, capitalism, politics
The mind is not a mental abstract in isolation. It is a cork floating on a turbulent sea, buffeted by waves, undertows, high winds, doldrums, whirlpools. The mind’s job is to cope with this troubled sea in a timely manner. Man is just DNA’s way of making more man DNA. This “purpose” is evident in all life. IE the purpose of a chicken’s DNA is to make more chicken DNA. By extension the “purpose” of life is to make more life.

Outsight

InSight

“occidentals seek insight, orientals seek outsight” – el Loco Gringo

“In the most embarrassing cases, the person who offered the observation is convinced that the full import of his insight can’t have been understood, and insists upon pressing it again and again. What’s actually happened, though, is that the person has outed himself as desperately behind the curve by offering the very opposite of an insight: some utterly elementary point that everyone else had taken for granted as a premise of the conversation, and indeed, one too obvious to be worth stating among (so they had thought) other reasonably bright and informed people.” Here’s an idiot found here>juliansanchez

and my response

“Amusing
I have an example, every physicist knows that the universe is of a wave nature, Plato, Newton, Einstein UNDERSTOOD this. Yet physicists continue to describe the universe in euclician terms. This is fine if you’re trying to build a bridge but totally inadequate if you’re trying to understand the nature of the universe. Pointing this out to a physicist is an an “outsight”, an elementary and fundamental point that has been overlooked in the discussion. It’s what I call the aristotelian brain fart. Most of the people in this thread are idiots, (used in the clinical sense.) excepting lj and one other. Don’t take umbrage, you’re in good company. most people are idiots. ” run with the squirrls

I notice that everytime I inform someone they’re an idiot, all the love seems to get sucked out of the thread. How odd.

Other terms I’ve heard for idiot, second hander, 2d, hollow, golem, zombie, stupido, superficial, sub-normal.

Please pick another if idiot offends you

The Morphing

Morph

So let’s look through this particular tunnel. The view of the tunnel the mama grizzly/soccer mom is looking through is perceived as society/individuals. These are the endpoints set by the tunnel. This particular tunnel limits them to an extremely squish view of the Great Mysterious. (different tunnel) and has a less squishy relationship to the view through the genetics tunnel, or the evolution tunnel.

So let the games begin. society/individual is inside the skull. SOCIETY/INDIVIDUAL is the projection of society/individual onto what we perceive. The duality if you will. If the universe is finite SOCIETY/INDIVIDUAL would be appropriate, which may or may not be true since the two cognitive minds can fully account for this duality. Else GREAT MYSTERIOUS would seem more appropriate. I suspect the latter.

So what’s happening here? Patterns are forming and correlated in the right mind, and interpreted by the left mind as disharmonious. The reticulator, summing the aggregate and accumulate dis-harmonies adds urgency (bias) The ANN (overseer) notes the two outputs are increasingly not consistent and is impelled to action. For sake of discussion we’ll call the right mind “sarah”, the left mind “palin”, the ANN “Sarah Palin”

So Sarah Palin morphs from a pit bull (individual) to a mama grizzly (resonant with other mama grizzlies) to effect change, realizing (squishy) that the aggregate and accumulate impact of mama grizzlies can “calm” the dis-harmonies. A built in feedback loop if you will, doing whatever minimizes the dis-harmonies. This is only for a mind uncrippled by ideology. The ABF has disabled this built in moderating function.

I’m not talking about evolution, or genetics or the cosmos. I am talking about mama grizzlies. That is the tunnel I was looking through.

So it would seem consciousness is an illusion

We only think we’re thinking.

Speedometer

Time

Previosly I had posited the the minds were doing the equivalent of what I was doing in geophysical data processing. This view says that the right mind is perceiving reality in the frequency domain at the axon level. This perception is expressed as tensors, (rotating vectors) which are, in turn interpreted by the left mind as dimensions, color and time (and other things). This is exactly the same process used in data processing, in which input vibrations (time domain)are translated by a rastor box (Fourier Transform) into the frequency domain and back (inverse Fourier transform). But the 4th dimensional component is not actually thrown away, it is expressed as phase as an addendum (kludge) This happens because we can’t draw a four dimensional representation of anything on a piece of paper.

BUT, what if the wrong dimension was thrown away? I think that phase was interpreted as time. So that would lead me to believe that phase is a function of the reticular activator. Applying a “twist” to the vector, putting the rotate into the vector, making it a tensor. This would account for the situational nature of the right mind’s time. The weighting spoken of earlier, the intensity. So, in a sense, weighting IS the time of the right mind. (How big is that lion?) Which would speed up or slow down the variable nature of “natural” time. In other words, how fast the vector spins. Keep in mind that this is only a perception of reality, and not reality. Reality’s outside the skull. As to how, see

This is NOT thinking, but perception and interpretation. Thinking is handled at the dendrite level

emergence EndoplasmicReticular Time

Chi

Chi The life force power of the universe. There are jillions  of cults, procedures, techniques. myths, legends etc. alluding to tapping into the power of the universe. Even the bible mentions it.It is telling that I consider this somewhat mundane.  I picked Reiki only because it has a cool graphic.  Here’s some links if you’re interested ReikiPage Laying on of hands ReikiFAQ

Pissing with the wind rather than into it.  If the plane’s flying backwards, reverse the pitch of the prop.  Mr Sid’s going with the flow.  Pulling up the anchor on Mr. Ted’s much beloved sailboat.  I view it as not so much increasing power, but reducing drag,  Removing impediments,  Getting the mind back to the state it was created/evolved/unfolded in.  Using both sides of the brain.  Or Mr M’s getting in the zone. Try to see the big picture.

Get down to the real nitty gritty.  You can’t take the dancer out of the dance.  The dancer and the dance are interactive, but there is more happening here.  More than choreography.  More than music. More than lighting.  If you take this apart, the resulting parts are trite.  Trivial. Meaningless.  In the WHOLE is more than all that.  It is what we used to call a happening.  It is a synergy of all the parts, from the individual molecules of the dancers to the universe which supplies the parts when stars explode. We are star people.  Understand the magnificence of what is going on.  The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Embrace the wonder of it all.  Have a happening

Removing Lattices and  Taboos.  Seeing the world in its interactive whole.  In short being normal.  Just recognizing that there are other ripples out there.  And acting accordingly.  The water’s fine. Jump in.  Unwrap your gift and enjoy.

The one I can relate most easily to, however in Mr Ted’s Hurricane.  Get the hell out of the way.  The same thing happened in 1968 with hurricane Bessie, and I got out of the way.  Went to Florida in fact.  I really don’t like hurricanes.  

 

Enigma

The above image is a visualization of GOD, click to see whad GOD looks like.  It is also a visualization of the universe.  They are, after all, the same thing.

Why do you think you must make a choice between an intrinsic perception of the universe and an intrinsic perception of god? we can use the word god if you prefer, with the caveat that i use the word god to express an intrinsic perception and GOD to describe the extrinsic. I maintain that religion is just a concept we put into words to describe our perception (god) of GOD. As I stated with physics I am not talking theology here but only our perception of GOD. (in this case) with there being no actual distinction between GOD and the universe. The distinction is inside the skull only. your previous discussion has centered on the “physics” perception of the universe. You have now switched to the “theological” perception of the universe. (or GOD if you prefer, same thing) In this communication you are confusing a perception of GOD (god) for GOD in the same sense that mainstream physics is confusing our perception of the universe (physics) for the universe. Using religion to get an understanding of GOD is fine as long as it is understood, that it is not GOD but only our perception and interpretation. with god being the perception and religion being the interpretation. there are three things happening two inside the skull and one outside. this is an enigma only because the ABF forces an either/or choice. the distinction you make between physics and religion is artificial. The minds work the same way no matter what we’re thinking of.  Brain Fart BF visuals
this is pretty good, actually, I feel a post coming on. i’ll anonymize it.

Exactly, the built in logic flaw in the brain. This guy is smart. It took me years to see that.

Dogma

Hi Mr Mary,

don’t know where to start. Big Al was still alive when i took physics in high school, so his theories were perhaps discussed more than now. all physicists since seem to have lesser minds. he saw the problem but could not resolve it, as was the case with newton. the problem being that the universe ain’t euclidian. It must be understood that physics is an hipostatized belief system no different than any other dogma. it does not describe reality but only a sub-set of reality. This is fine if you’re going to build a bridge, but totally inadequate if you’re trying to determine the nature of the universe. Physicists KNOW that the universe is of a wave nature but don’t understand it. (nor do i, but at least I know i don’t understand it, they don’t) the particle description of the atom, for instance has the proton, electron (which are actually fields) with the neutron thrown in as a kludge to balance the equations. This hipostaticed view has exploded into weirdness like quarks, big-uns, parallel universes whatever, all silliness. “accident upon accident” as Big Al said. when you have a model that only a lunatic can understand, it’s time for a different model. you’re into this, I’m not. I can see the problem, but I can’t see the answer.

http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/politics/hipostaticy/

later walt

on August 17, 2010 at 8:46 am

Mary Daly

Well, you might find it interesting to read the MCAS way, Joel Williams’ website. At least it provides a non-lunatic model of the atom, and one that works. He also has a book with a very interesting section

on August 17, 2010 at 9:43 am

ellocogringo

Hi Mr Mary

yes, yes, yes. he’s got it. he has clearly identified the problem. my interest, as i mentioned is not in physics per se, but thinking about physics. IE why are people idiots (your lunatics?) if i can get him hooked up to mr ted (he’s looking at it from the other end, gotta work the logic both ways) they might be able to put the tail back in the snake’s mouth.

thank you

Oracle

Back to About

The Oracle

Musing – Contemplation; meditation. – Free Dictionary

Muse – Absorbed in one’s thoughts

Muse – (n) a seer

Muse – Greek Mythology Any of the nine daughters of Mnemosyne and Zeus, each of whom presided over a different art or science.

Muse>Domain>Emblem

Calliope>Epic poetry>Writing tablet

Clio>History>Scrolls

Erato>Lyric poetry> Cithara

Euterpe>Music>Aulos

Melpomene>Tragedy>Tragic mask

Polyhymnia>Choral>poetry Veil

Terpsichore>Dance>Lyre

Thalia>Comedy>Comic mask

Urania>Astrology>Globe and compass

Delphic oracle, the most important oracle in the classical Greek world, The oracle consulted with the muses to answer questions of importance.

I am going to use the word musing for what is happening in the right mind, thinking isn’t really appropriate. Do you notice the close correlation between what the muses did and what we think we know of the right hemisphere? (taking into account the culture differences)

I don’t think the muses were myth in the strictest sense of the word. And there really were oracles. I posit that the muses were a mental framework (similar to the ANN) that the oracles used to do bottom up thinking. (I think that an oracle was, in fact, a person capable of bottom up thinking)

Posit – to lay down or assume as a fact or principle

If true, I am the Maylene Muse.

When I get curious about something, the answers start coming. I may be full of shit, but it sets the algorithms, (top down thinking) for better or worse, with the best answer to date.

As far as the right mind is concerned, the point of all this is that there is no point. There is no goal, no conclusion, no target, no “scientific method”. When I get curious about something my right hemisphere starts “free associating” with the contents. It doesn’t assume anything. And there’s a lot there. The entire universe (As I have perceived it) Every thing I have seen, experienced, felt, thought, heard is there. All knowledge that I have ever acquired is there. This is what is not working in most peoples minds. This is the insight, the epiphany, the bullshit detector. This is the way the mind is supposed to work. And it has been crippled. The wires have been cut to the light bulb. And the muses are dismissed as myth. This cutting causes the beast, the hollow man, the abyss, the superficial man, the p-zombie or whatever term you wish to use. A cultural lobotomy. What would society be like with a thousand da Vincis, a million, a billion, 6 billion? Maybe there will be a 100th monkey happening.

Nice pictures here> Golden Muses

And a nice take here> Apollo29

 

cascade

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)

Square Earth

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

Protected: TAO

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

Password:

Core Beliefs

The Choice is yours

Return to> the minds

Response to comment  by Hambydamit – My comments highlighted and below the feathers

“Is it possible to find nirvana secularly? Not a Buddhist “deathless” nirvana, more like a Maslowian self-actualization nirvana.

Sam Harris made a pretty big deal about this in his speech at the conference. Personally, I think his ideas were fairly reasonable, and he just found the worst possible way to say them to a bunch of dyed in the wool atheists.

As others have pointed out, there’s nothing mystical about meditation. There’s also no guarantee that you’ll find anything that will make you happy through meditation. Daniel Dennett made a really good point when he noted that the vast majority of people who go into caves for three years to meditate don’t say anything useful or interesting when they come back.

I’m a big fan of cognitive therapy. I think you might want to give that a look. It’s not something you even need a therapist for if you’re truly honest with yourself and aren’t afraid to ask hard questions. Just buy a textbook from a college bookstore and learn how to do it yourself.

Here’s the basic overview:

* Humans develop “core ideas” that are more or less hard-wired into our brains when we are still quite young. Epigenitics again – walt ref “asperta supra”

* These core ideas help us form shortcuts so that we don’t have to reason through everything from the beginning. They’re like our own personal axioms — things that are self-evidently true, and don’t need to be evaluated further.

* The problem is that sometimes we form core ideas that are false. Nope they’re taught – walt

* False core ideas lead to lots of false beliefs that we may not even consciously know we have. The neurons don’t exist. An unknown known- walt

* Identifying false core beliefs leads to identifying self destructive behavior patterns.

* Identifying self destructive behavior patterns leads to identifying “triggers” that cause us to engage in those patterns.

* Once we identify the triggers, we can begin to reprogram ourselves. When a trigger happens, we consciously override it. Over time, our new behavior patterns replace the original ones, so that we now have true core beliefs and healthy behavior patterns. Burn new neural pathways – walt

In fact, I can’t think of any reason why you couldn’t meditate as a means to discovering false core beliefs. Why not have the best of both worlds? Anyway, check out cognitive therapy. Nothing can guarantee happiness, but I’ve got a lot of personal and anecdotal evidence that it can work.
He’s right on about the “core beliefs” which I would call imprinting. The false beliefs are learned beliefs that are consistent with the core beliefs. For instance the “core belief” of the aboriginal belief system is “man belongs to earth, earth doesn’t belong to man”. Without this core belief, the entire aboriginal world view collapses into meaningless babble. This central thread can be found in all American belief systems. Cherokee, Meso-american, Aztec, Mayan, Incan etc. The learned beliefs, which seem to set them apart are only superficial.

Still working on that channeling center you asked about – walt

Mindfulness Contemplation PDF

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

……

“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.

Ayn Rand

A New Morality

“One must attend to one’s own needs without infringing on those of others.”

Return to the minds

It is not in the nature of man–nor of any living entity–to start out by giving up, by spitting in one’s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential. …

Ayn Rand, New York, May 1968

“There is a slavering beast devouring the minds of man”

“To me–it’s being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who’s had some disease that’s eaten his brain out. You’d have nothing then but your voice–your voice and your thought. You’d scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you’d have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you’d become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you’d see living eyes watching you and you’d know that the thing can’t hear you, that it can’t be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it’s breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That’s horror. Well, that’s what’s hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own. I don’t think I’m a coward, but I’m afraid of it. And that’s all I know–only that it exists. I don’t know its purpose, I don’t know its nature.” – The Fountainhead   This is the pull that got me.  I’ve seen that beast myself.  I call it the abyss.  No matter what you say to them, the words fall into the abyss.  The story itself is about a man who is foolish enough to depend on truth in the justice system and rely on his own integrity to prevail.  Underlining the story line is the theme of second-handers, those who get their self esteem second handed.  I call them zombies.  Even though she got raving reviews, she went to bed crying because no one understood.  Of course, they were zombies incapable of understanding but pretending to.  I disagree with Ayn Rand’s new morality.  What I find interesting is that she was not an idiot.  And I always find interesting things with non idiots. She was a transcendent .047% of the population.  …….. “An irrational society is a society of moral cowards—of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals. But since men have to act, so long as they live, such a society is ready to be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values—or from the thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility.”– Ayn Rand She would be pleased to know that a number of Ayn Rand societies have sprung up fostering study of the philosophy put forth in her books.  The book is cogent, as is atlas shrugged.  Notice the cameo of Ayn Rand in the courtroom.

FountainHead AtlasShrugged Downloads Altruism Anthem Ethics Faith Gold Government Objectivism Path Rights Ayn Rand 1 AynRand 2 Ayn Rand Society Rourke’sSummary Galt’sSpeech

Bifurcated Fart

Stool

Again

This is an exchange between Mr Ted and myself  homing in on the nature of the thought process.  I am going to ignore the OPL because MrT’s essays do tend to be verbese.  It’s not glare, it’s just the way he thinks.  We’re herding cats here.

Gang of 3 (Mr Ted 07/17/10)

Found Here> http://goodshare.org/wp/gender-and-space-in-the-social-dynamic/

1. We can imagine dynamics to be one-sided and male (with space as a non-participant) in which case the individual is deemed fully responsible for the results of his actions which ‘play out in time’.  This ‘male’ view of dynamics is impossible in ‘reality’ but it is employed extensively in Western thinking.  We use it to establish ‘credit’ and ‘blame’ for emergent ‘results’.  This is the legacy of Aristotelian notion of ‘purpose’ (‘intrinsic final cause’) as in the ‘acorn-to-oak-tree’ dynamic where we conceive of the encoded knowledge and purpose encapsulated within the acorn, pushing out of itself (self-actualizing) to produce its final form in such a manner that it is deemed fully and solely responsible for this result.  This simplistic (“not that which is most true but that which is most easy”) view of dynamics is used as the foundation for ‘genetics’ and for ‘Darwin’s theory’ and dominates in western architecture/design of organization (government and commercial enterprise)..

2. We can imagine dynamics to be two-sided and androgynous (with space as a non-participant) so that there will always be ambiguity as to the respective ‘male’ and ‘female’ combination; i.e. the dynamic is assumed to be one dynamic of an androgynous character.  This understanding we use when we observe a tree moving in the wind or a flag flapping in the breeze.  There is no ‘time’ separation in this view, between the re-forming of the tree-boughs and the re-forming of the airflow, since the one is simultaneously reciprocal to the other.  This leads us to complexify our understanding of dynamics to the point of seeing dynamics as geometric transformation; e.g. if we start with a simple dynamic view where Lulu is leaving work and heading for the party, we have two entities; ‘Lulu’ and ‘the party’ which are converging.  But the party is not the same party that Lulu was moving towards when Lulu is included in it, and work is not the same ‘work’ when Lulu has been removed from it.  That is, movement of things can also be understood as the transformation of the relational geometry of space where intrusion (male) and accommodation (female) are flip sides of the same coin (the transformation of the geometry of space).  This is still ‘one step short’ of including space as a participant in dynamic phenomena.

3. We can understand dynamics in terms wherein space is a participant is characteristic of ‘flow’ as is the worldview in a Heraclitean philosophy; i.e. the male-assertive fountaining-forth is in conjugate relation with the here-receptive-there-resistive accommodating of the fluid medium.  There are not ‘two dynamics’ going on in this view, but one dynamic which we can interpret as two.  For example, within a community, there is generally a mixture of ‘pushy’ and ‘accommodating people.  The pushy ones tend to have an ‘ego’ that gives full credit to themselves for ‘the results’ that ‘they achieve’ and regards their accommodating brethren as ‘weak’ and ‘inferior performers’ as trees that are whipped about by the wind..  This is the ‘social Darwinist’ view that gives zero credit to the female accommodative aspect and sees all results as if they derived from male competition.  This is at the origin if the feminist complaint; ‘my grandfather was a famous engineer, my grandmother had no name’.  But the big step in ‘complexification’ of our view of dynamics (bringing our understanding closer still to the reality of our experience) is when we ‘let go’ of the notion of the persisting identity of ‘local objects’ and acknowledge that they are transient ‘forms’ that gather in the flow.  As Emerson says, all material objects are essentially like the cataract; i.e. there is a persisting form there even though it derives purely from flow.  Material objects that gather and are re-gathered in the flow are not only ‘inhabited’ by the dynamic of the flow-medium but are created by it.  The flow is a ‘holodynamic’ in which material objects are flow-forms that are continually being gathered and re-gathered.

Hi Mr Ted

BINGO!

Damn you’re getting good at this. I am reduced to contesting only one word in your summary of 3.

where you say

*3. We can understand dynamics in terms wherein space is a participant is characteristic of ‘flow’*

I would substitute imagine for understand.

This is entirely attributable to:

*3. The precedence of nonlocal over local

Caught you. I caged that cat. The aboriginal Brain Fart! (sorry about the graphic in this link, I couldn’t find a animated brain farting with a feather )  This is the “it is obvious that” which has no place (literally, no neurons) in bottom up/top down thinking (Aristotelean/Taoist Brain Fart.) This leads me to speculate on the bifurcated fart, IE sometime in pre-history The basic imprinting pattern changed from the ABF/TBF pattern which are two minds of the same brain to something different. Fascinating!

This is my take on the gang of 3 (occidental)

Consider “A centered’s thoughts are governed by his own truth, an idiot’s thoughts are governed by someone elses truth.” – el Loco Gringo (to Mr Geoff)

1.This is the stupidity you speak of. An idiot has no “me”. No inner voice that whispers “back off” when someone else tries to occupy “rent free space” in their mind. They become zombies, robots, hollow, golems pretending to be wise, clanking around in this meaningless ant warren of a society we inhabit. They are, in fact, without volition.

2. The centered, being pragmatic, understand and accept the ambiguity of the situation, pretending to be idiots, doing what ever it takes to survive but maintaining their individuation, however surreptitiously.

3.Then there are the nexialists, what Maslow called the transcendents. They understand and do not accept the ambiguity of the situation, and they’re going to do something about it. Their minds have not been hijacked.

This “difference” I attribute entirely to my having data you are not privy to IE we have two cognitive minds.

Overall, very, very impressive analysis, a sidereal view of the ABF/TBF brainfart. Far superior to Plato.

MRI’s

“Brain imaging studies seem so simple and elegant: Hook someone up to a functional MRI (fMRI) machine, which measures blood flow; see which parts of the brain light up; and identify regions associated with love, rejection, etc. But in a forthcoming paper [pdf], psychologist Hal Pashler of the University of California at San Diego and his colleagues challenge the validity of broad claims that come from these studies. The authors charge that shoddy statistics and noisy measurements are leading to gross overestimations of the correlation between brain activity and emotions.” Pugnacious

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/18-the-pugnacious-paper-that-aims-to-turn-neuroscience-on-its-head

The omniscient erudite and eloquent maharishi emeritus el Loco Gringo will break this down so you don’t have to read the entire report. There, wasn’t that easy? However, eLG is grudgingly forced to admit that even an idiot can come up with relevant data. This is a really good gif file that shows pathways. As to the problem, the brain is a chemical computer, so the electrical flashes they are seeing is the result, not the cause. IE, a side-effect of what’s happening. Also, It only shows the electrical activity at the axon (perception) level, which may be fairly accurate, but the activity at the dendrite (logic) level is questionable, which is what the paper is alluding to. I wonder if they’ve identified the “idiot center”?. Now that I’d be interested in. This is what Big Al was referring to “building accident upon accident”

Below: White matter fiber tracking derived from Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). The paths of fibers passing through the corpus callosum were tracked. Red represents fibers running primarily left/right. Blue is up/down, and green is front/back.

http://bic.missouri.edu/images.html

I was thinking when reading Mr Sid’s Chemistry of love of what happens when the drugs wear off. Wake up at 3 AM look at your sleeping spouse and wonder “what was I thinking?”

Missouri ChemistryOfLove Pugnacious

Protected: Dogtrack

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

Password:

Bonking Polly

We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because “two” is “one and one.” We forget that we still have to make a study of “and.” Arthur Eddington

in re your chapter, I’d like to look at the and. Your observations are valid, your conclusion is valid, your deductions are valid, but the “why” is a problem. You’re painting yourself in a corner.

We have two minds operating on 3 levels, perception/interpretation, logos/mythos and weighting.

Setting perception/interpretation aside for the moment I’ll look at the mythos side (bottom up) your abduction.
The right mind can be considered a primarily a input data collating device which keys on not inconsistencies, (if it hasn’t been hijacked) an AND boolean network with output of consistent, not consistent, inconsistent and not inconsistent. These are 4 seperate and distinct logic patterns. In english you would say best answer to date, this idea seems to work for the moment, could be and bullshit. The outputs may be contradictory or even mutually exclusive. The left mind “looks” at this output and picks the most likely. Weighting is a tie-breaker. (reticulum) To see this process in action picture charlie chimp in the paleolithic pondering whether to bonk polly protohuman. “the last time I bonked polly, how many times did the alpha male hit me and how hard?” based on this collated information the left mind can make a yes/no decision.

The left mind however is primarily a data discarding device, shitcanning redundant and irrelevant data. For instance on the perceptual level, you walk into your office look around and sit down. So you’ve seen it once, that’s all it takes if there are no inconsistencies. (a boa in your chair you might notice) from this point on no matter how many times you look around the room, you do not “see” it, but see the stored memory of the room. There is no need to process the visual information more than once. Been there, done that. Your line drawings of the logic tree are right, by the way. But they are inverted between top down and bottom up IE the output of the bottom tree “best answer to date” becomes the first hit on the top down tree.

You see Mr John, you only think you’re thinking. (usually) It takes 8 seconds to start thinking. What is actually happening is you are pulling up pre-collated concepts. The possibility of the thought has already been considered. If it hasn’t you get that “deer in the headlight” look. WTF? precludes pre-surmising.
If this hasn’t sent you screaming for the exit, here’s a link.
http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/mind-1/

Verbal Vertigo

Idiots

On communicating with idiots

Quotes are exclusionary. IE in the western mind, setting aside for the moment that most people are idiots and are quick to dismiss Poindexter, Plato, Newton, Einstein as metaphysical bullshit, none of these people has a “best answer to date”. Remember that the left algorithm (top down thinking) is primarily a data discarding mechanism (exclusionary). Using my terms, So, while you or I may say “Schrodinger was right about A, and Plato was right about B and Einstein was right about C, and newton was right about D, therefore ABCD are not inconsistent. (could be) the Aristotelean brain fart limits the possibilities to A or B or C or D. In practical terms, what this means is that if a non-idiot cannot fit ALL of a concept into his worldview, the entire concept is rejected. Speaking of Schrodinger’s “one mind” to me is probably valid, but he did not “work the logic both ways” and failed to address the issue of “quantum minds”. So while an idiot would reject schrodinger as metaphysical bullshit, a non-idiot (with ABF) would reject schrodinger as incomplete, So anytime you quote schrodinger (or anyone) you are giving the reader an excuse to reject your core concept. Remember also that the words you use to describe extrinsic/intrinsic (or local/spacial or top down/bottom up or yin/yang etc) define the tunnel you are looking through. Swapping tunnels in a discussion gives a top down thinker “verbal vertigo” “he was talking about physics, now he’s talking about geese, WTF?” .  Their thought processes are limited by either/or possibilities. While I understand that the thought processes are identical for describing hurricanes, or geese, or bikers or the big hoochie coochie, most people can’t make that connection (ABF). They can’t hold more than one concept in their minds at one time.   To a person with ABF it is akin to swapping horses mid gallop, possible but tedious. (and that’s for a non-idiot, to an idiot the horses would be going in opposite directions) The core concept may really be rather simple but explodes into double-reverse thinking, backwards thinking, ping pong thinking, ambiguities etc. when expressed in words suited only to a Cartesian view of the world.

Yup, some of einstein, some of nietzsche some of newton, some of schrodinger can weave a “best answer to date”.  (after all, that’s what I do, and you) And i would certainly not want to not give them credit, it would be dishonest.

In the body of the message they are distractions that idiots can’t handle. Perhaps footnotes, or credit at the end.  Or both?  Or something else like “newtons right about A and nietzshes right about B but grouped separately? (in fact that might make a good paper in itself) it’s the scatter i’m concerned with. top down thinkers can’t handle that.  Remember a top down thinker starts with a conclusion and rejects all data and logic that doesn’t support it, dismissing it as metaphysical or percentages or aberrant defugalties. They’re trying, for instance, to reconcile a messed up cosmology with a messed up quantum mechanics, each with grand theories backed up by math that “proves” their position.  The scientific method doesn’t prove anything, it can only disprove. They think that calculus “proves” their views if they can put enough kludges in it, leaving the kludges for someone else to resolve.  they end up building their view with “accident upon accident” until they end up with a byzantine labyrinth of illogic that only a lunatic can understand. They don’t even realize that they’re asking the wrong question That’s why i call them idiots. Using top down thinking for inquiry borders on insanity. Look at the word irrational, for instance, it means, literally, not subject to ratios, but the ABF has left it with the urban meaning of illogical.  I think you are seriously underestimating the stupidity of the people you’re dealing with, quite intelligent but stupid nonetheless.

Pitfall

Return to the minds

Anti-Retrograde de-squishifying

What? Has eLG fallen off the cliff again?  What does an outdated Kiddie game with poor graphics have to do with physics, (or anything for that matter)?  Stay with me here folks,  I am trying to get a very simple concept into what is evidently very little minds.  If you don’t read anything else I have to say, read this.  This is Outside of the skull is the universe, it is of a wave nature.  All physicists know this but few physists understand it since Plato. This is not metaphysical bullshit but an attempt at an explanation for how we confuse out perception of reality for reality and how it affects our thinking.  Plato called outside the skull the ether, I call it the big hoochie koochie so as not to be confused what idiot philosophers and physicists mis-interpret as what he was saying.  Please pay attention folks, see if you can get a few of those neurons to synchronize and bypass that imprint you got in school.

Pitfall  Harry

(Atari 2600)
Picture this! You are deep in the recesses of a forbidden jungle – an unforgiving place few explorers ever survive. But you’ve got courage, because you’re with Pitfall Harry, the world famous jungle explorer and fortune hunter extraordinaire. the lure of hidden treasures draws you and Harry deeper and deeper into the bush…
–From the Atari 2600 Pitfall instruction manual.

Pitfall Harry is out for treasure in the jungle. Swing from vines, jump rolling logs, and hop from crocodile head to crocodile head in the search of treasure.  But, above all, avoid falling into the pits.

Of course it is.  Pitfall Harry ain’t real.  The point I am trying to make is that mainstream physics is also bullshit.  I am desperately trying to communicate something important to what are evidently idiots.  How the Ariestotelian Brain Fart has screwed up your thinking.  Maybe you will be amused by the pretty pictures and stay with me.

I am going to draw a line of skulls, the universe is on this side of this line and you are on the other side ,

Try not to fall into the pit like pitfall Harry.  Try to make that intuitive leap.  Avoid the verbal vertigo, the Aristotelian Brain Fart.  Understand that you are dealing with shadows, a  duality of reality.  You have fallen down the rabbit hole into wonderland.

So we go to the concert hall to listen to The London symphany play Hava Nagela.   Someone plunks his magic twanger and and that foxy gal in the blue gown toots her flute.  The BIG HOOCHIE KOOCHIE does an “unfolding in the now” .  At this point we leave reality and go inside the skull.

Enter the world of inside the skull

Understand that this is a 2d representation of a 3d interpretation of a 4d perception of reality (it’s squishy)

This “unfolding in the now” is perceived in the right mind as a rotating vector in the frequency domain. (the little hoochie koochie) I call this perception.  The doorman approves this perception (we did, after all, pay for the ticket so it is relevant)  and the left mind interprets this perception in the time domain as a note.  (one dimension is discarded and color, time and sound is added)  ToTO pulls back the curtain to reveal reality

Simultaniously the pattern in the right mind is evaluated as to relevancy by a parallel/boolean network with possible outputs of yes, no, both, or neither yielding correlations to stored patterns.  The results of this 4d process (in this case yes) is  presented to the left mind for where it is interpreted with a serial/binary process (in this case also yes). The algorithms compare.   “Aha!” says the left mind, “someone in the band just plunked his magic twanger.”  Now we’ll go back outside the skull on the output side.

“Aha!” says the ANN (esentially; the overseer, the you the ego the self the “i think therefore I am” of descartes fame) “you know, if we represented the note as a rotating wheel and stretched it out on an amplitude/time x/y graph, we could invent trigonometry”

So Newton gets hold of this and invents calculus. But as Mr Ted points out “once you re-integrate the differentiated reality you are left with a whole that is less than WHOLE”  Newton sees this but just attributes it to “God moves in a mysterious way”

Now here come the Physicists.  Maintaing this cult of ignorance the assume the uneverse is particle in nature and attribute the discrepancies Newton observed to percentages, probabilities, quantum, theory, parallel universes etc.  Newton’s was better, at least he only had one unknown. Modern physics has built up a byzantine labrinith of illogic that only a psychotic can understand, piling error upon error.j  This is the logic error that was resolved by the Renaissance, during which people quit dissecting the concepts of others, and actually began doing experiments to determine what was actually happening.  We need a Renaissance II.  People need to start thinking for themselves.   So when we get down to the real nitty gritty we discover that Physics is bullshit.  It’s OK if you want to build a bridge but sucks if you want to discover the nature of the universe.  Physicists are not scientists, they are engineers pretending to be scientists.    Khaos reveals chaos theory.  and for you, Mr. Ted, the universe is infinite (from our perspective) as the earth is flat (from our perspective) and you can’t use flat tools to explore either.  You’re using a rubber ruler.

So many words for such a simple concept.  

“Truth is simple and beautiful, deceipt is devious and ugly” – el Loco Gringo

Is that really that difficult to understand?

keeper

Core Concepts 1

Lexicon of the Psyche

(de-squishification)

Return to the minds

≈ equates to

> subset of

<=> equivalent to

Outside the skull (input)

Great Mysterious ≈ ether, Big Hoochie Koochie, Cosmic standing wave, spacial sourcing ≈ primary?

Brain fart interface perceptual

Inside the skull >bHK

Perceptual

Right mind ≈ mythos, feminine, (time domain, vectors, tensors),[differentating] ≈ secondary?
Taoist brain fart [integrating]

Left Mind ≈ sound, time, color, motion (artifacts)

Logical > perceptual

Primary defense mechanism (bypasses algorithms)

Right mind ≈ logos, parallel, bottom up, constructionist, boolean

Left mind ≈ shortcuts, serial, top down, reductionist pathfinder? > tertiary?
Aristotelean brain fart [differentaiting]

Outside the skull (output)

Right mind art, music,

Left mind calculus>trigonometry>math>dimensioning (3^rd, 4^th,5^th etc ‘iary etc)

This is the framework I have to fit every concept into. Because of imprinting I cannot conceptualize anything that I cannot fit into this framework. (the neurons no longer exist) In spite of it’s obvious limitations this framework is much more inclusive than most peoples. This is how my mind works. Each persons framework is unique (except for idiots who only have dogma to work with) The question in my mind is how many “free” neurons a person has left to accept “new” concepts. “use ’em or loose ’em”.  Although the brain looses 2/3 of it’s neruons, there is plenty of redundancy so that is not a factor. So whatever logic a person uses to get the “best answer to date” is right. The output of MY logic tree is “it ain’t real”

So in my view, the core belief “man belongs to earth, earth doesn’t belong to man” is tertiary, not secondary.

Great Mysterious

Hi Mr Ted,  07/05/10

Sorry to be late getting back but you asked a big question here.  I had to wait till I could get the answer on one page.  (i don’t sit down and start writing with the intent of a one page limit, it is a goal i set for my bottom up thinking (eLG) which flags me when finished.  “time to answer Mr Ted”)  Your parallel is faster than my bottom up, my top down is crisper than your serial.
Anyhow, I’ll use the terms big and little hoochie koochie to label what’s “in here”.  and “the “great mysterious” to label what’s “out there”.  My view is;
Outside the skull is the great mysterious (GM) unknowable (unless you can fit it inside your skull) I  use the terms “BIG & LITTLE KOOCHIES”  to describe the great mysterious.  BHK is the sum of all the LHK’s  (if it’s finite, which concept i’m not sure even applies.)
Inside the skull we have to look outside through tunnels, which establish endpoints. (possibly turning the infinite into finite) and all we have to work with are our perceptions (bhk & lhk) and interpretations (top down, bottom up) so right off the get go we’re dealing with a sub-set of the GM and have to include a kludge “the GM  is the sum of all the lhk’s PLUS whatever it is we can’t perceive.”  So we interpret (top down) this subset bottom up perception  with our top down logic and say “the universe has a wave nature, is negentropic and is rotational with an octave characteristic, (maybe).  (kludge).  the more we zoom in through this tunnel, the more constricted the end points become and the further from reality we get.  so we are left with saying things like “society is the sum of all the individuals plus all the other things that affect society.” (which is everything, a kludge)
This then is the yin/yang wars, the battle of the hemispheres, the clash of algorithms, the local forcing/spacial forcing imbroglio which is rendered semi-moot because we’re not talking about reality but only our perception of it, truth being elevated to TRUTH.
We don’t know how accurate this perception is.
There is no TRUTH, there are only truths.
It’s all inside the skull.
It ain’t real
eLG did good    OPL walt

“The enemy you seek to defeat is the law of causality: it permits you no miracles.” – Ayn Rand

Einstein challenges this world-view that keeps layering accident upon accident, in a campaign to bore the human heart out of its natural wonder.  Notice the universe

Inside the skull

OK.  So lets say that the top graphic illustrates what’s outside the skull.  Call it the big hoochie koochie, GOD, Nirvana, cosmic standing wave, universe, one mind, TAO.  It doesn’t matter, they all are the same thing. Now we go inside the skull where what is perceived is called god. (but not GOD) or yin (but not TAO)

Inside the skull, in the right mind our perception of TAO forms the tao pattern.  This identical pattern is referred to as  nirvana, god, little hoochie koochie, cosmic standing wave, space time continuum etc.  depending entirely on world view.  The Taoist brain fart confuses this for reality. This happens at the axon level in the frequency domain.  This IS yin.

Inside the skull in the left mind the output of the right mind is interpretated in the time domain as sound, time, color, touch etc. also handled at the axon level.  The Aristotilean brain fart confuses this for reality.  This IS yang.  Please note, we are not even up to thinking yet.

Still inside the skull, the right mind evaluates the perception received in the right mind at the dendrite level with a weighted boolean/parallel network with outputs of A or B or Both but not neither.  This IS what the right mind thinks about yin.  This output is available to the left mind which determines the relevancy to dealing with the world.  (in the west) using a binary/serial process.  It MAY, depending on input, tunnel and world view, come up with something like this, or this.  This IS what the left mind thinks about yin  (yang).  The results of the left and right mind outputs are compared for inconsistencies, and if none exist The concept is accepted as valid.  (Feng Shui) Else the bullshit detector goes off. (feng shui fail, or feng shui fooie, or Oops!)

The weighting (importance) of the overall output is determined by the aggregate and accumulate output of the reticulator. This can be easily envisioned with the analogy of Charlie Chimp pondering whether to bonk Polly Protohuman.  What must be considered “The last time I bonked her how many times did the alpha male hit me and how hard”. Or in medeival times “How many people have been burned at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun”  or in modern times “How many people have been de-tenured when they spoke of the wave nature of the universe?”

So we are speaking of a biased subset of an evaluation of an interpretation of a perception of reality.  Kinda squishy huh?

Note, this is how it is supposed to work and assumes the brain hasn’t been hijacked by ideology.

Back outside the skull on the output side.  So now we come to this, a 2d representation of a 3d interpretation of a 4d perception of reality.  It ain’t real it’s a friggin piece of paper.  You can’t get back to TAO you may not even be able to get back to yin. Once you re-integrate the differentiated reality you end up with a whole that is less than WHOLE.  Quarks, parallel universes, dark matter etc are kludges to make the equations balance.  It’s mental masturbation. It’s trying to determine the nature of the universe by going over the programming code.  

ride on the wild side

Back to hardware mind

A ride on the wild side

It is this “My way or highway” attitude in mainstream physics that prevents an understanding of the nature of the universe. There are some things happening inside the skull that affect the understanding. Your interest is outside the skull. Good, I prefer to leave physics and math to people who are interested in such things. Simply put, there is an unseen and unconsidered interface inside the skull which effects thinking. Consider Plato’s TOE. His logic is impeccable but his data is incomplete. He extrapolates his TOE from the 5 platonic solids. Grab the saddle horn here, your mind’s going to start bucking. My interest and question is WHY has he omitted the most basic and fundamental of the solids, the sphere. My interest is why are so many people stupid? His mind rejected the most obvious of all the solids. As for me, I can’t understand why everyone can’t see the vibrational nature of the universe. It is so obvious. Why does 99+% of physicists say they know the universe is vibrational in nature (or waves or compaction, or reflections (whatever, the word is not the concept) but they don’t act like it. Why are they so stupid, intelligent maybe, but stupid none the less. WHY, WHY, WHY? They continue to play silly mind games with the two slot experiment, the measurement problem, (what I call the whereness and whenness of the electron) the decay problem etc. My interest is not in the nature of the universe, per se, but WHY ISN’T IT OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE, not just physicists? Try to brush the crazy aside, I have the fear that if I start talking like an idiot, I’ll start thinking like one. (maybe stupid’s catching) ALL conventional wisdom is WRONG. (only dead fish go with the flow) People think backwards. Saddle up and let’s ride off into epiphany valley. My brain is trapped inside my skull, the only input being through imperfect and filtered senses. Something out there is doing the shimmy-shake. I call it the big hoochie-koochie there’s a visualization link below. Be sure to play the accompaning audio to catch the harmonics. So these vibrations come into my right mind and are perceived as rotating vectors. This is not reality, this is only a perception. This is what an animal perceives. There is no time, no color, no sound, just the rotating vectors. Actions are based not on discrete data, but on patterns in the vibrations. This is a weighted boolean network. Very complicated and cumbersome. The left mind reaches into this chaos (in both senses of the word), throws away a dimension and begins collating, matching, organizing etc. so as to present it in a form more useful in the decision making process (unless, of course, you’re trying to figure out the nature of the universe) This is a binary network This is an interpretation. OK, lets tie up here for a moment and think this through. Let’s make it simple. The big hootchie-koochie is doing something out there that that is perceived as a single rotating vector by the right mind. The left mind interprets this as a harmonic tone, as we add vectors to the perception we find that this tone has a beat of 8. (do, re, me, so, fa, la, ti, do) ie recursive, with an element of 8. (I’m not sure I’m using the right words, the words don’t exist, try to stick with the concept. “the word is not the concept”) Now lets take the results of this interpretation back outside the skull. An idiot physicist starts plotting the output data against an artificial domain called time on a piece of paper. This makes a sine wave. He then uses this sine wave to figure out what the big hoochie-koochie is doing. But it ain’t real. It’s just a friggin’ piece of paper. But he thinks it’s real. Time to get the horses back to the corral and rub them down. We’ve been riding them pretty hard and they’re getting sweaty. (one page limit)

Big hoochie koochie

A ride on the wild side
It is this “My way or highway” attitude in mainstream physics that prevents an understanding of the nature of the universe. There are some things happening inside the skull that affect the understanding. Your interest is outside the skull. Good, I prefer to leave physics and math to people who are interested in such things. Simply put, there is an unseen and unconsidered interface inside the skull which effects thinking. Consider Plato’s TOE. His logic is impeccable but his data is incomplete. He extrapolates his TOE from the 5 platonic solids. Grab the saddle horn here, your mind’s going to start bucking. My interest and question is WHY has he omitted the most basic and fundamental of the solids, the sphere. My interest is why are so many people stupid? His mind rejected the most obvious of all the solids. As for me, I can’t understand why everyone can’t see the vibrational nature of the universe. It is so obvious. Why does 99+% of physicists say they know the universe is vibrational in nature (or waves or compaction, or reflections (whatever, the word is not the concept) but they don’t act like it. Why are they so stupid, intelligent maybe, but stupid none the less. WHY, WHY, WHY? They continue to play silly mind games with the two slot experiment, the measurement problem, (what I call the whereness and whenness of the electron) the decay problem etc. My interest is not in the nature of the universe, per se, but WHY ISN’T IT OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE, not just physicists? Try to brush the crazy aside, I have the fear that if I start talking like an idiot, I’ll start thinking like one. (maybe stupid’s catching) ALL conventional wisdom is WRONG. (only dead fish go with the flow) People think backwards. Saddle up and let’s ride off into epiphany valley. My brain is trapped inside my skull, the only input being through imperfect and filtered senses. Something out there is doing the shimmy-shake. I call it the big hoochie-koochie there’s a visualization link below. Be sure to play the accompaning audio to catch the harmonics. So these vibrations come into my right mind and are perceived as rotating vectors. This is not reality, this is only a perception. This is what an animal perceives. There is no time, no color, no sound, just the rotating vectors. Actions are based not on discrete data, but on patterns in the vibrations. This is a weighted boolean network. Very complicated and cumbersome. The left mind reaches into this chaos (in both senses of the word), throws away a dimension and begins collating, matching, organizing etc. so as to present it in a form more useful in the decision making process (unless, of course, you’re trying to figure out the nature of the universe) This is a binary network This is an interpretation. OK, lets tie up here for a moment and think this through. Let’s make it simple. The big hootchie-koochie is doing something out there that that is perceived as a single rotating vector by the right mind. The left mind interprets this as a harmonic tone, as we add vectors to the perception we find that this tone has a beat of 8. (do, re, me, so, fa, la, ti, do) ie recursive, with an element of 8. (I’m not sure I’m using the right words, the words don’t exist, try to stick with the concept. “the word is not the concept”) Now lets take the results of this interpretation back outside the skull. An idiot physicist starts plotting the output data against an artificial domain called time on a piece of paper. This makes a sine wave. He then uses this sine wave to figure out what the big hoochie-koochie is doing. But it ain’t real. It’s just a friggin’ piece of paper. But he thinks it’s real. Time to get the horses back to the corral and rub them down. We’ve been riding them pretty hard and they’re getting sweaty. OPL

Reverse Engineer

Reverse Engineering

Return to the minds

The concept that one can reverse-engineer a human mind from an abstract concept is so off the scale of bizarre that it is pathological.. I’ll try math. 2 + 3 = 5. always has been, always will be. It’s deterministic in nature 2 + 3 = ? is also deterministic in the sense that one can derive 5 from the 2 + 3. Saying 5 = ? is indeterminate, it’s nonsense, even insane. Hearing this concept of decision making come from anyone is troubling, hearing it come from someone I like is distressing. Upon hearing this it took me 3 1/2 seconds to realize it was a severe case of PTIB compulsion.
To convey what PTIB is would require a degree in math, a masters in fluid dynamics, and a thesis in quantum mechanics. I could then publish a paper using the chaos theory to describe why not all things belong in baskets. It would then take 10 years for this concept to percolate into Psychology, and some adventurous psychologists would test the hypothesis and write papers on why emotional disorders should not be placed in baskets. The success rate for psychotherapy would skyrocket. Then you’d start having idiots try to bring the witchcraft back in and PTIB would be described in the witch doctors reference manual on psychological disorders as a recognized illness. Why must there be baskets?
The QD Fix is my desperate method of communicating with another a very simple concept. ”Be who you’re supposed to be, not who someone else wants you to be.” They must be self -centered to achieve fulfillment. When someone approaches me with the basic plea “I hurt, heal me” what has happened is that their defense mechanism has broken down, they sense that I am centered and they want the secret magic fix, something to fill the hole in their soul so they don’t have that painful aching need. But there is no secret magic fix. What works for me will not work for them and the abyss will return. They must be self centered. So I do my QD Fix shaking my beads and rattles, dancing naked around the fire, chanting “begone demons”. Because, that is, after all, what the QD Fix is, just a neolithic method of communication that bypasses the defense mechanisms. It works as well now as it did 50,000 years ago.
That’s all a psychotherapist has to be. An emotional mirror. It really is just that simple. Why all the baskets? What possible purpose is served? It destroys meaningful data, and obfuscates the rest.

Education

“What can we do about it?” – DrB

Return to the minds

In regard imprinting. Interesting question. The word “we” was used with intent. An idiot would say “What can I do about it?’ with resignation. Centereds have a sense of social responsibility, able to balance the individual needs against those of society. An idiot will take the optimum solution for him at the expense of society. Evidently, they want their children to be just as stupid as they are. One would think that all that needed to be done would be to inform the educational system. WRONG! They know, and they’re doing it anyway. They are KNOWINGLY mutilating our children’s minds so as to improve efficiency. That’s what I got so angry about a couple of months back.

The question now becomes “if we didn’t have idiots running the school system, what can we do about it?” The trick would seem to be to enable the bottom up thinking that is crushed by the educational system now. Sitting almost forces top down thinking while standing almost forces bottom up thinking. So one approach would be field trips. Instead of teaching history from a book, get them off their butts and take them to an historical battlefield. “the union troops were up on that hill” (pointing) hiding in the bushes. “The confederate troops came down this path, and were ambushed. The towns people were gathered in the shade under their umbrellas drinking tea, and once the bullets started flying decided that they really needed to get back to their chores” Make it real. On woods excursions teach them important stuff like “don’t wipe with poison ivy” (that’s worth imprinting) or don’t eat the yellow snow.

Sir Ken suggests more emphasis on the arts, particularly drama, and creativity brought into the classroom.

My favorite is learning. I use learn as a transitive verb, I present the data, say what I think about it, and ask for responses. “What do you think?” This is opposed to teaching where opinions are expressed and accepted as fact during the critical period. The Benedictine’s mission was to spread enlightenment, not teach.

“We can’t teach you, we can only show you how to learn” – Bro Max

This critical period is when children become aculturated to society and should be viewed with that in mind. Social mores, interactions, etc. Let them learn what we have evolved to learn in the timeframe which human nature dictates. Hijacking this natural process is no different than brainwashing on a permanent basis. They become idiots.

These are human beings, with a glorious potential. Not a bunch of damned machines to be programmed. Pull, don’t push. Work with nature, don’t try to control it.  Provide a platform to allow them to be who they are supposed to be, not who you want them to be.

Below are two videos by Mr Sir Ken Robinson.  This is his web page, the videos are on the riglht.

Sir Ken Robinson

Protected: Enculturation

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

Password:

Caveats

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

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