Tag Archives: recursive mind

The Functional Mind II


A cartography of the human psyche

“We are not smarter because we have more neurons, we have more neurons because we are smarter.”– el Loco Gringo

OK children, we now get down to the real nitty gritty. How does the mind really work? We will disregard the physical aspects and concentrate only on the logical aspects of operation. Time to quit talking baby talk and psycho babble.

The protohuman brain consists of only a few logical determinations. Sensory I/O, Interface, the ANN and it’s associated defense mechanisms. Auxiliary support and control mechanisms are outside the our direct purview. The sensory I/O consists of the sight, sound, smell, proprioceptor input, (pain, location, heat, cold etc). The interface is that part of the mind which transforms input from the sensory I/O into a form usable by the defense mechanisms. (turns photons into a spectrum of intensity and color, turns vibrations in the air into sound. The output of the sensory I/O is not reality but a representation of reality. The ANN is the Allocated Neural Network, dedicated to the maintenance and modification of the defense mechanisms, and excluding that part of the mind devoted to autonomic responses. Estimate 200-300 cc of brain mass. This is the I, the me/not me, the seat of consciousness. It thinks real time. Time is the missing element in the understanding of the mind, that element ignored by the various ‘ists. Getting the timing right is crucial to the survival of this critter. It takes time to think. If the timing is too short the defense mechanism will be relatively unsophisticated. If too long, it will be spending too much time. If Charlie Chimp is standing around the Savannah with his head up his butt, thinking about doing the ugly bump with Poly Protohuman, and his response to a threat is not fast enough, or sophisticated enough, he won’t be doing Poly tonight and we won’t have a Stanford Dept of Psychology for el Loco Gringo to make fun of., and that would make him very sad. So an optimal time evolved. about 1/2 second. Using his newly evolved ability to use tools and implements, Charlie Chimp (Alpha Male) could now beat the subservient males about the head and shoulders with a stick guaranteeing his primacy in the poon tang receiving department and reinforcing the taboo.

There is a time imposed limit on the number of neurons that this type of mind can utilize.

Sometime between 50,000 and 2,900,000 years ago the greatest evolutionary leap occurred since the first few neurons clumped together. Wet ware. This miracle allowed the thinking to be done off line and the resultant changes implemented. Indexing allowed for the possibility of not accessing the data directly, but indirectly. ie with the reprogram able wet ware it is necessary only to know the location of the data, not the data itself. This mind is capable of handling many more neurons without compromising the timing constraints.

People think backwards. We are not super-chimps. it’s a whole new ball game.

Introducing the unANN, the unAllocated Neural Network, a free form mass of neurons (2000cc) that can be programmed for specific functions and used as a storage area that can be accessed via indexing by the ANN. It is now possible for the defense mechanisms to become much more sophisticated. They are so much more sophisticated that a new word is needed. Algorithm.

Duality1 Duality2 Intuition 3JokerPoker 3FacesOfEve Musing Atenolol IntroToCT BlueSkyProject MindTime Aggregation TheDogThatDoesntBark TalesFromTheInside SomethingHazyThisWayComes MiracleOfMusic Daimon ‘effinTheIneffable Truth Bipolar Savant

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


‘effin the ineffable

‘effin the ineffable

“education put the sub in sub-conscious” – el Loco Gringo

There is a large group of people incapable of independent thought. Ayn Rand calls them second-handers. Robert Wilson calls them robots, Ted calls them stupidos.  Geoff calls them parrots, Richard calls them hollow, Pauline calls them one-dimensional. I call them idiots. The why is a separate issue, but it’s basically social conditioning, primarily education and religion during the critical period of childhood development.

There are actually four logic paths to consider. (Our bipolar (Aristotelian) view of the world limits us to two). They are left (top down), right (bottom up) neither or both. The occidental world is predominately left, the oriental right, the Mideast neither. And there are separately derived logic trees fractal (African) and circular (meso-American) In other words, all we are talking about here is one family of logic trees. The top down/bottom up, occidental/oriental, determinate/indeterminate, left/right, male/female, yin/yang, scientific method/yoga, serial/parallel, depression/manic (bi-polar), individuation/oneness, hell/nirvana, conscious/sub-conscious etc. family. I can’t speak to the others. But idiots are all left with no right. (In our society). I posit that the bipolar has more yin/yang than he knows what to do with. He has allowed idiots to become aware of his ability to muse.

Are you aware that our world view is mirrored in the orient? IE they have oriental idiots who are all right and no left? They use yoga not to gain nirvana but to gain direction? (top down) They have no problem with whereness and whenness but the scientific method eludes them. What is so complicated? With some synergy it becomes simple. Why are people dumb? The mind is incredible, and it has been mutilated. Evolution (or god or destiny, it doesn’t matter) has given the gift of awareness to man and he has thrown away the gift and is playing with the pretty paper and ribbons. I’m getting frustrated again (a silent scream).

I have the native ability to use bottom up thinking. IE I am bipolar manic/depressive. The above example was shown in the top down mode. There is however another perspective, bottom up. It all has to do with how you slice and dice the input.

In the top down mode (binary, serial) the input IS grouped as:

left/right OR top down/bottom up OR yin/yang OR determinate/indeterminate OR etc, etc, etc.

In the bottom up mode (Boolean, parallel) the input CAN BE grouped as:

left AND top down AND male AND yin AND depression AND individuation AND hell etc., etc. OR right AND bottom up AND female AND yang AND manic AND oneness ANDnirvana etc, etc.

In the top down mode I use thinking and intelligence. Fast and easy, but un-nuanced

In the bottom up mode I use musing and SNAP. Slow and cumbersome, but more holistic Weighting is also a factor, an aggregate and accumulate process of biasing.

Consider Charlie Chimp, a hominid roaming the savanna in the paleolithic. He is in the bottom up mode musing on bonking Polly Protohuman again. His left gives a quick and definitive YES but his right says, MAYBE NOT, there’s the weighting to consider. IE the last time he bonked Polly, how many times did the alpha male hit him, how hard and for how long. He be musing here. Then a lion leaps out from behind a bush, and he drops out of this metaphysical bullshit mode (It takes at least 7 seconds to respond in the bottom up mode, In case you haven’t thought about it, that’s not a good thing) into the top down mode (>1/2 second) and hauls ass. It boils down to applying appropriate logic to relevant data.

Thus the question of the bipolar personality has more to do with the ability to balance power with finesse. You must ask the right question if you want a reasonable answer.  Bipolar asks the wrong question.  In fact, bipolar is a counterfeit concept.  It can be caused by genius, chemical imbalance, injury, hormones, etc.  In short, they’re clueless.

Basically, my sub-conscious ain’t sub. I am fully aware of the thought processes going on. The above description is not theory or conjecture. That IS how I view the symbolic relationships in the right mind. Or more accurately, that is how my right mind views the relationships. The entire concept of there being a condition called bipolar strikes me as silly. Consider one of the classic symptoms of bipolar. “can’t stick to topic”, or “flits from subject to subject with no apparent relationship.” This IS the bottom up thinking process in action, as the right mind searches for possible co-relations between maybe relevant information. This logic train was probably instigated by the psychologist, and the patient, thinking he is talking to an “expert” is doing his best to respond. If he doesn’t have a ready made response he flips into the bottom up mode. The reason an idiot can’t follow this process is not because the patient is crazy, but because the idiot is stupid. The idiot then “diagnoses” the patient as bipolar, tells him he’s crazy, and puts him on dopazine. By now, he is crazy. I am not saying that everyone who babbles incoherently is sane. I’m sure that there are a bunch of looney tunes out there. But most of my emotional problems stem from having to deal with idiots, stupid people doing stupid things for stupid reasons. Unless a bipolar can find a non-idiot psychologist, capable of dealing with his concepts on his terms, his prospects are slim. Until then, it’s better to keep the gift to himself.


Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

It ain’t real

Data Mining

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

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

This is what is actually happening in the computer (right mind, bottom up thinking) the left mind interprets this and puts a picture on the screen that you can make sense of.  What this interpretation looks like depends on the software installed.  (wetware(imprinting + learning))  The data range being analyzed determines the tunnel.  BUT, unless you’re god,  both the ASCII (perception of reality) and the picture on the tube (interpretation of reality) are subsets of the data base.  (REALITY)

All this discussion of quantum mechanics, parallel universes, nirvana etc is quite literally

For a complete analysis of this problem see here  Calculus Mr Ted

So to answer the question “is the perception real or is the interpretation real?”  the answer is NO!

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


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

Supervised Learning has the goal of predicting a value for a particular

characteristic, or attribute that describes some behavior. For example: (AKA curiosity)

The attribute being predicted is called the Target Attribute.

Unsupervised Learning has the goal of discovering relationships and patterns

rather than of determining a particular value. That is, there is no target attribute. (AKA sub-conscious free running)

Examples S1, S2, S3 illustrate Binary Classification – the model predicts one of

two target values for each case (that is, places each case into one of two

classes, thus the term Classification).

Example S4 illustrates Multiclass Classification – the model predicts one of

several target values for each case.

Example S5 illustrates Regression – the model predicts a specific target value for

each case from among (possibly) infinitely many values.

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

Detection – the model trains on data that is homogeneous, that is all cases are in

one class, then determines if a new case is similar to the cases observed, or is

somehow “abnormal” or “suspicious”.

Example U1 illustrates Clustering – the model defines segments, or “clusters” of

a population, then decides the likely cluster membership of each new case.

Example U2 illustrates Associations – the model determines which cases are

likely to be found together.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Big Hoochie Koochie

The Big Hoochie Koochie

“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what” – Sir Arthur Eddington The cosmic standing wave, is rotational in nature with a beat of eight and is negentropic (Kinda hard to put the universe in a lab) Past that I can’t say, I’m not a mathematician nor do I care to be, nor am I sure that mathematics is relevant until it can be used to quantify the frequency domain. (a new mathematics, maybe?) It has had many visualizations, ripple patterns in a pond, refractive patterns etc. I’d like to propose my own visualization “The big hoochie koochie”. It’s as good as any and better than most. She vibrates, is rotational in nature with a beat of eight and she can definitely get it together. Not very professional you may say. Why thank you, I consider professionalism to be a negative character trait.


How odd, it sounds just like the little hoochie koochie.  Maybe they’re the same thing, our dual view of the universe projected outwards.

The big hitch in the giddyup here is that physicists are using an artificial quantification to evaluate an interpretation of of a perception. Put another way, they are measuring shadows of reality (Plato’s Cave) and they’re using a rubber ruler. Geoff and Milo Wolff are without a doubt correct as far as they go.  Their view is certainly the “best answer to date”, and in view of the indeterminate nature of the frequency domain, may be the “best answer possible”.   Should be fun. As I mentioned, my interest is in what the “big hoochie-koochie” is doing inside the skull.  I prefer to leave physics and mathematics to those who are interested in such things.  I challenge any mathematician or physicist to disprove the “Big Hoochie Koochie”. This then is where bottom up thinking comes into play.  If you want understand finance, you start with the penny.  if you want to understand the mind, you start with the neuron.  If you want to understand the universe, you start with the sine wave.  If you want to understand waves, you start with a geophysics.  If you want to build a house, you start with the foundation.  Else you have “sand castles in the air” – “Big Al” Einstein and “mankind has to start thinking differently if it is to survive” – Big Al I could use some help here, is koochie spelled with a k or a c?  I couldn’t find a definitive answer on the internet.  Observer The yin/yang wars duality

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Little Hoochie Koochie

The Little Hoochie Koochie

More years ago than I care to remember in high school, I recall a lecture on the wave nature of matter that went eerily like this:

Wave Nature of Matter


“Planck came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized–that is, it could only take on certain values. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little “chunks” of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck’s constant, or h.”

“Einstein proposed that light also delivers its energy in chunks; light would then consist of little particles, or quanta, called photons, each with an energy of Planck’s constant times its frequency.”

The summary of this mental musing was> “Yes, I’m afraid it’s a bit more complicated than that. Some experimental results, like this one, seem to prove beyond all possible doubt that light consists of particles; others insist, just as irrefutably, that it’s waves. We can only conclude that light is somehow both a wave and a particle–or that it’s something else we can’t quite visualize, which appears to us as one or the other depending on how we look at it.”
Einstein sums it up well here >“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
In the GEA talk the question was posed; “is space making electrons, or are electrons making space?”
This is asking the right question. The answer is YES, not A or B but both. The universe is negengropic.
This is beginning to look suspiciously like the brain fart, the built in logic and perception flaw in the brain.
Posing a question as A OR B IS the logic brain fart.
“It is obvious that (whatever)” IS the perception brain fart.
I prefer to leave math and physics to those interested in such things as I consider them meta-concepts.  But it would seem, in view of the brain fart, is that somehow the logic has to be worked both ways.

Joel Williams must read>  MCAS

“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” Sir ArthurEddington

Phase and group velocities of three electrons traveling in slow motion over a distance of 0.4 Ångstroms.

Why not just say; “Dunno” It’s not A or B it’s “something else”.  Planck is talking about a perception, Einstein is talking about an interpretation.  Neither is talking about reality IE The big and little hoochie koochie.  Both are stretching and twisting their rubber ruler trying to measure something ENTIRELY INSIDE THE SKULL.  What Mr. Ted would call (local forcing)  The big and little hoochie koochie (same thing) are outside.  (what Mr. Ted would call spacial forcing)

Please note I am speaking only of the thought processes.

So the big hoochie koochie must be equal to all of the little hoochie koockies



So, how do you quantify the un-quantifyable?

“It ain’t real” – el Loco Gringo

Audio  of little hoochie koochie>

How odd, it sounds just like the big hoochie koochie. Maybe they’re the same thing, our dual view of the universe projected outwards?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine