...
.. chaos ensues as there is something still unresolved ... seeking its resolution .. as in everything there are variables and parameters .. that define the processes underlying a system's state .. the paths taken .. a change in one of the values in the variables or parameters perturbs the processes under way ... myriad alternatives are revealed .. with each one a potential solution to the problem at bay .. that offers the resolution needed
individual seeks order? .. the drive, the motive .. to resolve chaos .. by looking at the internet with the keyword chaos .. we probably will amass a great number of cases daily .. which refer to chaos .. and find what was still unresolved .. and what change .. in what specific variables or parameters perturbed the processes .. what alternatives have been unravelled .. and whether there was any of alternatives picked out .. as the solution to the problem
Changes in variable or parameters? .. either change .. or change in only variable or parameter? .. anyway, my thought developed that .. the changes which will bring forth temporary(?) chaos .. would be on parameters .. as first the range parameters vary is small .. whereas variables can accommodate a larger range .. variables expected to change freely .. without a big effect on the state of a system .. a linear effect .. whereas parameters are restricted, not as free as variables .. and their change .. might alter completely the state of the system .. potentially(?) nonlinear effect
might alter completely the state of the system? .. as a system is defined by the variables and parameters that brings it forth .. is relying upon a specific set of variables and parameters ... new variables are expected to appear, to emerge .. and they are responsible to the system's new state .. 'old' variables might either disappear completely or their presence might be reduced .. second-rated .. their significance diminished .. a set of other variables at bay .. variables hidden .. underlying .. non-observed .. unobserved .. the system changed non-linearly
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Monday, 15 June 2009
Rejecting objectivity, embracing subjectivity.
It is mentioned in the article, "Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten", that
"... the mathematician John Von Neumann intentionally used ambiguous terms when discussing the philosophy of quantum equations, meaning he could fit on either side."
Either sides of, mysticism in science, as different aspects are explored, what the article is about. But beyond that, this phrase reveals the extraordinary significance that language plays in the efforts of human individuals to probe reality.
Ambiguity intended, not an accident, conferring meaning for either side. Individuals in either side found meaning in John Von Neumann's terms, each for their own sake. Revealed by the individual John Von Neumann, the extreme flexibility of language, assisting in meaning creation by individuals.
As it is further mentioned
“He was a genius at linguistic innovation and came up with German terms that could support many different interpretations,”
Linguistic innovation, terms to support, many different interpretations. The essence of language in the human individual's attempts to grab a firm hold on reality. Von Neumann's genius reveals language's in-exhaustive potential. Dynamic, hand-in-hand with the mind's ingenious ability to probe reality. Always in flux. By its use the individual is able to, acquires the ability to discern the minutest details of physical processes.
Stop seeing language as the rigid body, riddled with rules, queen's english and so on, a tool to separate the pleb from the patrician. Rules that are flexible, that bent but do not crack, do not give in. Rules that are as many as the individuals, that use the language, rules that their only purpose being, to assist the individual's effort to achieve meaning. Instead of a set of rules that render language, a tool for the privileged, the supposedly educated lot in the world, that intimidate individuals, spurn them from expressing themselves and bring forth the contents of their minds. Sprawl for others to see, increase the subjectiveness in the world. Use their consciousness to a massive collective effort to probe reality.
Mentioned in the article
"In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself."
as meaning is created and can only exist in the human individual's mind
"Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful."
Language the only tool the individual possess, to grab a hold, a firm foot for the mind to understand, as processes undergo, the outcomes created. Point at them, define them, symbolise them. Build equivalent neural structures, nodes to expand mind networks. Always engaged, ready to respond. Built from scratch, ever extending, plastic.
The objective being, but a mix-up of subjective views struggling against each other to arrive at the so-called objectivity. Objectivity which to a great extent is defined by factors other than the subjective views that have risen from, in the first place. Exercising our subjectivity continuously and by as many individuals as possible will lead to views more widely acceptable, consolidating a common ground for the next leap ahead.
Objectivity, intrinsic in the object, a goal unattainable whereas subjectivity, the look at the object from the viewpoint of the subject, what is only left for us to do, attainable. Probably imperfect and as such, it carries within the tendency for change, constantly striving to perfection. Regardless of any improvements that science or other discipline bestows upon any views that human individuals offer, do not change the fact that they are still subjective views. Assuming any of these views as objective is pointless.
Rejecting objectivity, embracing subjectivity.
"... the mathematician John Von Neumann intentionally used ambiguous terms when discussing the philosophy of quantum equations, meaning he could fit on either side."
Either sides of, mysticism in science, as different aspects are explored, what the article is about. But beyond that, this phrase reveals the extraordinary significance that language plays in the efforts of human individuals to probe reality.
Ambiguity intended, not an accident, conferring meaning for either side. Individuals in either side found meaning in John Von Neumann's terms, each for their own sake. Revealed by the individual John Von Neumann, the extreme flexibility of language, assisting in meaning creation by individuals.
As it is further mentioned
“He was a genius at linguistic innovation and came up with German terms that could support many different interpretations,”
Linguistic innovation, terms to support, many different interpretations. The essence of language in the human individual's attempts to grab a firm hold on reality. Von Neumann's genius reveals language's in-exhaustive potential. Dynamic, hand-in-hand with the mind's ingenious ability to probe reality. Always in flux. By its use the individual is able to, acquires the ability to discern the minutest details of physical processes.
Stop seeing language as the rigid body, riddled with rules, queen's english and so on, a tool to separate the pleb from the patrician. Rules that are flexible, that bent but do not crack, do not give in. Rules that are as many as the individuals, that use the language, rules that their only purpose being, to assist the individual's effort to achieve meaning. Instead of a set of rules that render language, a tool for the privileged, the supposedly educated lot in the world, that intimidate individuals, spurn them from expressing themselves and bring forth the contents of their minds. Sprawl for others to see, increase the subjectiveness in the world. Use their consciousness to a massive collective effort to probe reality.
Mentioned in the article
"In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself."
as meaning is created and can only exist in the human individual's mind
"Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful."
Language the only tool the individual possess, to grab a hold, a firm foot for the mind to understand, as processes undergo, the outcomes created. Point at them, define them, symbolise them. Build equivalent neural structures, nodes to expand mind networks. Always engaged, ready to respond. Built from scratch, ever extending, plastic.
The objective being, but a mix-up of subjective views struggling against each other to arrive at the so-called objectivity. Objectivity which to a great extent is defined by factors other than the subjective views that have risen from, in the first place. Exercising our subjectivity continuously and by as many individuals as possible will lead to views more widely acceptable, consolidating a common ground for the next leap ahead.
Objectivity, intrinsic in the object, a goal unattainable whereas subjectivity, the look at the object from the viewpoint of the subject, what is only left for us to do, attainable. Probably imperfect and as such, it carries within the tendency for change, constantly striving to perfection. Regardless of any improvements that science or other discipline bestows upon any views that human individuals offer, do not change the fact that they are still subjective views. Assuming any of these views as objective is pointless.
Rejecting objectivity, embracing subjectivity.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Consciousness fractal multi-level approach, explanation?
The abstract from the article MODELLING PROCESSES IN A FRACTAL NETWORK: A POSSIBLE SUBSTRUCTURE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS which is intriguing and should be passed through the grind of my cognitive apparatus
"Abstract: It is proposed that consciousness does not emerge from a single level of biological organization (for example: from computational activity at the synaptic level in networks of neurons), but is a consequence of interdependent modelling activities by networks at different levels of organization including the molecular, organelle, and cellular levels, in some way entrained to produce consciousness. Fractal stacking and intercommunication of networks at different levels is proposed as a substrate that may be required for consciousness, either natural or machine-based. Adoption of this conceptual starting point may overcome some of the difficulties encountered when reductionist strategies are applied to the study of consciousness."
Going along the same lines is the cognitive chaos website
"Abstract: It is proposed that consciousness does not emerge from a single level of biological organization (for example: from computational activity at the synaptic level in networks of neurons), but is a consequence of interdependent modelling activities by networks at different levels of organization including the molecular, organelle, and cellular levels, in some way entrained to produce consciousness. Fractal stacking and intercommunication of networks at different levels is proposed as a substrate that may be required for consciousness, either natural or machine-based. Adoption of this conceptual starting point may overcome some of the difficulties encountered when reductionist strategies are applied to the study of consciousness."
Going along the same lines is the cognitive chaos website
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Consciousness, a variable quantity that can be derived mathematically?
The concept of quantity is defined as
"the measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing",
as
"something that has a magnitude and can be represented in mathematical expressions by a constant or a variable",
and as
"something that serves as the object of an operation".
Thing being
"a separate and self-contained entity".
And in logic, quantity is defined as
"the exact character of a proposition in reference to its universality, singularity, or particularity",
borrowing the extensions of universality, singularity and particularity for potential applications for the concept of physical quantity.
The concept of variable is defined as
"a quantity that can assume any of a set of values"
Constructing a wireless receiver/broadcaster you would expect to tune in, to a broadcasting/receiving radio source and receive/broadcast an output which can be measured.
Consciousness, is constructed gradually since childhood and it can be thought as a wireless receiver/broadcaster as it receives/broadcasts signals. And it is variable within each individual, as it is surmised by its content, that make up its volume, volume thought as a physical as well as a mental quantity. Physical pertaining to the brain, neurons and neural networks organised in reverberated cell assemblies, and mental volume, taken in respect of concepts, thoughts, ideas that make up its content. The physical/mental volume of consciousness changes as the time passes along. It is a time-dependent quantity. The physical/mental volume of consciousness is variable from individual to individual, as well.
By the analogy of the wireless receiver/broadcaster, consciousness is quantified, by its receiving aptitude, by the quantity of the signals received. In broad terms it can be defined as how many signals are taken in, out of all the signals that exist at a particular time and space. Space refers to physical and mental space alike, whereas time is assumed to be the same, for either notion of space. The variable, in this case, can be expressed in the form of percentage, although regarding the measurement against signals existing, can be measured instead against an accepted standard, like an average constructed out of a population of individuals.
As far as the broadcasting aptitude, it is expected that, it would be dependent upon the signals broadcasted, expressed as a percentage out of the total of the signals received.
Any mathematical formula to measure consciousness, should be based on the process of learning, as is accomplished in its various ways. Any way, learning is effected, it is expected to change the physical/mental volume of consciousness, as by learning acquire and elaborate on concepts, thoughts and ideas and by that the number of signals taken in.
The more the learning, the more the concepts the individual possess, the more the signals the individual takes in, the greater its consciousness
"the measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing",
as
"something that has a magnitude and can be represented in mathematical expressions by a constant or a variable",
and as
"something that serves as the object of an operation".
Thing being
"a separate and self-contained entity".
And in logic, quantity is defined as
"the exact character of a proposition in reference to its universality, singularity, or particularity",
borrowing the extensions of universality, singularity and particularity for potential applications for the concept of physical quantity.
The concept of variable is defined as
"a quantity that can assume any of a set of values"
Constructing a wireless receiver/broadcaster you would expect to tune in, to a broadcasting/receiving radio source and receive/broadcast an output which can be measured.
Consciousness, is constructed gradually since childhood and it can be thought as a wireless receiver/broadcaster as it receives/broadcasts signals. And it is variable within each individual, as it is surmised by its content, that make up its volume, volume thought as a physical as well as a mental quantity. Physical pertaining to the brain, neurons and neural networks organised in reverberated cell assemblies, and mental volume, taken in respect of concepts, thoughts, ideas that make up its content. The physical/mental volume of consciousness changes as the time passes along. It is a time-dependent quantity. The physical/mental volume of consciousness is variable from individual to individual, as well.
By the analogy of the wireless receiver/broadcaster, consciousness is quantified, by its receiving aptitude, by the quantity of the signals received. In broad terms it can be defined as how many signals are taken in, out of all the signals that exist at a particular time and space. Space refers to physical and mental space alike, whereas time is assumed to be the same, for either notion of space. The variable, in this case, can be expressed in the form of percentage, although regarding the measurement against signals existing, can be measured instead against an accepted standard, like an average constructed out of a population of individuals.
As far as the broadcasting aptitude, it is expected that, it would be dependent upon the signals broadcasted, expressed as a percentage out of the total of the signals received.
Any mathematical formula to measure consciousness, should be based on the process of learning, as is accomplished in its various ways. Any way, learning is effected, it is expected to change the physical/mental volume of consciousness, as by learning acquire and elaborate on concepts, thoughts and ideas and by that the number of signals taken in.
The more the learning, the more the concepts the individual possess, the more the signals the individual takes in, the greater its consciousness
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Defining the unconscious and subconscious levels of the mind
I did start some thoughts that dealt with the unconscious and subconscious defining lines which should further clarified.
"Subconscious mind is the sum total of our past experiences." It is proclaimed in this website.
Confusing the unconscious with the subconscious as they use interchangeably without attempting to draw the boundaries between the two states.
Whereas, in another website feign ignorance about the whole matter.
"Subconscious mind is the sum total of our past experiences." It is proclaimed in this website.
Confusing the unconscious with the subconscious as they use interchangeably without attempting to draw the boundaries between the two states.
Whereas, in another website feign ignorance about the whole matter.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Another aspect of anger in the minds we make.
The resistance is heightened. The already established mental structures ridden with cobwebs solidified, rigid, inflexible and stubborn, do not give up. Inertia proper. The high degree of its inertia, require enormous amounts of energy to shift it.
Copious quantities, that only anger can provide. Should not fret to express the anger, should let it be the force that will break up the mold, shift the mental structures. Anger, the outburst unleashed with the energy carried by the force ...
.. 'energy carried by the force',
... what are the implications of that phrase, taking it as far as universe creating energy. Energy by itself inert, the outburst being the big bang? Anger? Energy gathered up, reaching a critical point, in need to get unleashed, and it is unleashed via the forces? And the forces? Channel energy into paths that create forms? All kinds of forms?
And chaos's initial conditions, and its sensitive dependence due to the fact(?) that these initial conditions represent trajectories, or are connected with paths that the forces carrying the energy unleashed, attain the maximum levels possible?
The forces, the corridors for the energy to burst out?
Copious quantities, that only anger can provide. Should not fret to express the anger, should let it be the force that will break up the mold, shift the mental structures. Anger, the outburst unleashed with the energy carried by the force ...
.. 'energy carried by the force',
... what are the implications of that phrase, taking it as far as universe creating energy. Energy by itself inert, the outburst being the big bang? Anger? Energy gathered up, reaching a critical point, in need to get unleashed, and it is unleashed via the forces? And the forces? Channel energy into paths that create forms? All kinds of forms?
And chaos's initial conditions, and its sensitive dependence due to the fact(?) that these initial conditions represent trajectories, or are connected with paths that the forces carrying the energy unleashed, attain the maximum levels possible?
The forces, the corridors for the energy to burst out?
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Why making the familiar strange brings pain in your head
...
.. the pain in somebody's head when it is contemplating the strange ..
.. the drastic re-arrangement of the synapses in the brain? .. brings pain? ..
.. only minor adjustments are allowed
.. small ideas .. single .. simple ..
.. which require the change in a few synapses .. or even leave the existing synapses intact .. only create new synapses
.. a pain threshold of breaking a synapse? .. is it measurable .. just for a single synapse?
.. should be more as ideas or concepts must engage, include a lot more synapses, certainly more than one
.. ideas despite being simple they are nevertheless complex .. ideas emergent .. entities .. emergent systems .. lying upon vast networks .. of neurons .. underlying superstructure ..
.. larger ideas would involve a much bigger network of neurons with a lot more synapses
.. personal experiences .. testimonies
ideas? .. they come by themselves? Why? Because they come, from out of the system boundaries, the supersystem .. the inclusive system, the system including
the previous paths, the paths within the system are circumvented, they are not visited any more, they are not included in the paths taken, the new paths.
As the paths do not include the ideas, whose extent is confined within the system, that avoids clashes inherent in the system, only. The feeling of helplessness and loss disappears, it does not materialise.
Clashes ensue following the paradigm of Gödel, as they develop out of contradicting rules that nullify each other, as a result there is loss of consistency
"Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system."
To get away from the idea, that using Godel's theorems, outside what is meant to be in the first place, namely mathematical systems, or even the volumes of Principiae Mathematica, is wrong.
In the particular case, of states, governments and societies, they are all axiomatic. Being systems based on axioms, values that are evident, without further arguments. And they are axiomatic, as it is widely based on values that they are regarded as evident without proof or argument.
.. societies .. are based upon axioms
.. the pain in somebody's head when it is contemplating the strange ..
.. the drastic re-arrangement of the synapses in the brain? .. brings pain? ..
.. only minor adjustments are allowed
.. small ideas .. single .. simple ..
.. which require the change in a few synapses .. or even leave the existing synapses intact .. only create new synapses
.. a pain threshold of breaking a synapse? .. is it measurable .. just for a single synapse?
.. should be more as ideas or concepts must engage, include a lot more synapses, certainly more than one
.. ideas despite being simple they are nevertheless complex .. ideas emergent .. entities .. emergent systems .. lying upon vast networks .. of neurons .. underlying superstructure ..
.. larger ideas would involve a much bigger network of neurons with a lot more synapses
.. personal experiences .. testimonies
ideas? .. they come by themselves? Why? Because they come, from out of the system boundaries, the supersystem .. the inclusive system, the system including
the previous paths, the paths within the system are circumvented, they are not visited any more, they are not included in the paths taken, the new paths.
As the paths do not include the ideas, whose extent is confined within the system, that avoids clashes inherent in the system, only. The feeling of helplessness and loss disappears, it does not materialise.
Clashes ensue following the paradigm of Gödel, as they develop out of contradicting rules that nullify each other, as a result there is loss of consistency
"Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system."
To get away from the idea, that using Godel's theorems, outside what is meant to be in the first place, namely mathematical systems, or even the volumes of Principiae Mathematica, is wrong.
In the particular case, of states, governments and societies, they are all axiomatic. Being systems based on axioms, values that are evident, without further arguments. And they are axiomatic, as it is widely based on values that they are regarded as evident without proof or argument.
.. societies .. are based upon axioms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)