Survival Value


Reductionist Constructionist

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



  • emile  On January 25, 2010 at 10:41 am

    i like what you write but i think you make too much of ‘the brain’. the brain is a concept that we had to invent after we decided that human beings were local, independently-existing systems.

    once we decided this, we were in your RT framing which occluded a lot of other possibilities such as seeing the individual as kind of ‘convection cell’ in a cluster of convection cells in a flow. the cell is not a ‘local system’ so we don’t have to impute some kind of internal driver of thought and behaviour to explain its behaviour since ‘it’ does not have its own behaviour. when three or more dynamic forms move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, the notion of ‘individual behaviour’ is no longer possible (the so-called ‘three-body problem’).

    thought and behaviour can instead reside in the flow. then we don’t need these ‘idiot’ and ‘non-idiot’ categories, and we don’t need the RT/CT distinction as if it applies to a ‘local individual system/organism’. the ‘parallel processing’ can be owned instead by the community of convection cells (which is ultimately the flow). community always seems to come first, perhaps because it is ‘spatial’. the community of sand-grains on the sandpile cling together like mountain climbers connected by a common rope. a solo climber will fall if he makes one slip-up, but the collective has more staying power because of spatial tensions that hold them in place.

    so which is the ‘general case’; i.e. where does thought and behaviour originate? … in the collective or in the individual. only if we opt for the latter do we come up with this idea of ‘the brain’ as the ‘local-forcing’ source of individual thought and behaviour.

    i see no justification for anything ‘local’. that is, i see no justification for the notion of local existence. the convection cell has no ‘local existence’, it is a dynamic figure in a dynamic ground-flow. the notion of local things (objects, material bodies, cells, organisms) depends on the notion of absolute space. if space is non-absolute then everything is relative, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE, as with a fluid-dynamic world (= space as an energy-charged plenum wherein the dynamic figures that appear to be locally existing [which then obliges us to think of them as having locally originating (internally-forced) behaviour], are merely ‘schaumkommen’ or ‘appearances’).

    we hang too much on our visual sensing. in our visualization of the geologic long term, we concede that even continents are artefacts of a convecting flow that stick up out of the water, their forms continuously changing with the opening and closing of ocean basins. everything is in flux.

    in the geologic short term we say that ‘local forces’ (fluvial, aeolian) create land forms, or ‘shape the surface of the earth. here’s that absolute space framing again, which we let go of in the geologic long term. the colorado river is not responsible for irregularities in the terrain such as ‘the grand canyon’, the colorado river is the result of irregularities in the terrain the tilting and transforming of the surface of the lithic flow, as acknowledged in the geologic long term.

    only in the short term can we ‘get away with’ talking about ‘local objects’ such as ‘local organisms’. in the long term we accept that everything is fluid and relative, as with convection cells in a fluid-flow (an energy-field-flow).

    every short term is included in a longer term, and every longer term is included in a still longer term, all the way out to eternality, and the long term is in the primacy over the short term, just wait and see.

    geologists can only talk about ‘local forces’ and ‘local forcing’ in the short term. this is the language of newton and he used differential calculus to get rid of the long term. with newton’s ‘differenting approach’, we can split the rotating vector out of the convecting storm-cell and forget about the rotating field that is the primary aspect of the dynamic and which wraps around the earth and back into itself (space is non absolute in a fluid-dynamical world).

    the notion of an individual with a brain is already stuck in RT mode, a partial truth that is very constraining and stops us from exploring the notion that dynamic figures in the dynamic ground-flow are like convection cells in a fluid (energy-flow) dynamic in which case, we cannot look to some ‘local internal neural process’ to explain thought or behaviour or anything. ‘local’ does not really exist. ‘local sourcing’ does not really exist, it is ‘visual appearance’

    we don’t need a brain to function (as a dynamic figure in the dynamic ground-flow). ‘brain’ is just a word that we relate to certain visual patterns. by defining and name-labeling it, we affirm its existence, just like we do with an imaginary-line-bounded sovereign state. only humans believe in this stuff. it is RT stuff. without common belief in it, the sovereign state dissolves into thin air and so it is with definitions such as ‘the brain’ or ‘the neural system’. we don’t need it to do our stuff.

    the world is a dynamic continuum within which dynamic figures/forms continually gather and re-gather. only after we start fragmenting things by making imaginary line bounded maps (which are not the real territory) do we come up with the notion of the brain as a local forcer of behaviour. ‘central government’ is the same notion. first we draw some imaginary bounding lines and thus create an absolute ‘inside’ into which we can pop an local-forcer of behaviour.

    then we can say that ‘US does this and the US does that’ as if there was a real thing there with its own behaviour but it is all ‘make-believe’. people who share a common belief in imaginary-line-bounded entities such as ‘the local individual human being’ will of course behave according to such belief. that is the problem.

    the notion of the individual with a brain that is the source of individual thought and behaviour is a conveniently simplified idealisation that we tend to confuse for reality. the notion only makes sense in the short term. in the longer term, everyone is emerging and subducting like the continents, dynamic figures in the dynamic ground-flow, visualisable flow-features.

    only in the short term can we superimpose imaginary boundary lines on them (there are no real boundaries in the circulating fluid dynamics of the lithic substance of the earth). by doing this we endow them with an absolute ‘inside’ and a ‘centre’, then we can talk about ‘them moving’ and use their ‘centre’ to map their trajectory (referenced to absolute space). but the fluid-dynamic view doesn’t endow them with their own ‘interior’ that is mutually exclusive of their exterior and it doesn’t allow for absolute motion, everything is relative in the fluid-dynamic worldview.

    human inhabitants are not the causal source of change in the habitat, human inhabitants are the result of change in the habitat. or, in other words, changes in the form and position of humans are spatially-forced rather than locally forced (internally driven).

    all this being said, i accept that we can model thought and behaviour starting from the notion of a brain. it is just another way of viewing things (which puts spatial forcing before local forcing). in any case, what happens happens.


    * * *

    • emile  On January 26, 2010 at 1:36 am

      ok, i have no problem in accepting, in principle, that there is some sort of ‘mental operator’ that will transform your way of understanding into mine and vice versa. our overall conversation ‘suggests this’, even though i don’t yet understand what that operator is, or even if it exists (i am just suggesting that it could).

      my longish note above seeks to go beyond the notion of an ‘individual’ in our attempt to understand ‘the individual’. this SEEMS inconsistent with your notion of categories ‘idiots’ and ‘non-idiots’.

      if we assume a ‘wave-space’ world view, then we assume a ‘fluid-dynamic worldview’ (see in which the ‘dynamic figures’ relate to ‘dynamic ground-flow’ in the manner of convection cells within the flow. the cells are the ‘result’ of turbulence in the flow rather than the ‘cause’ of the turbulence, in the same way that ‘the colorado river is the ‘result’ of irregularities in the terrain rather than ‘cause’ of irregularities; i.e. the terrain that the colorado is ‘ploughing the furrow of’ is not a passive female receptacle, it’s animation is primary in the partnership (conjugate relation) and it shapes the form and direction of the riverflow. our habit is to notionally portray the terrain or ‘surface of the earth’ as passive, and we invest all of the ‘forcing’ to the local fluvial action; i.e. our normal viewing is in terms of ‘local-forcing of terrain variation’. but as soon as we acknowledge the long term geologic view, where there is no such thing as ‘local’, we have to concede that there is ‘spatial-forcing of the terrain variation’.

      the basic point here is that ‘there is no split between space (dynamic ground) and matter (dynamic figures/forms). the split is artificial because our visual mode of understanding likes to ‘differentiate out’ the ‘local dynamic forms’ and impute to them ‘local agency’. this is an observer-invention that artificially reduces our ‘nonlocal’ experience of conjugate habitat-inhabitant inclusion, as in convection cells (dynamic figures) in an energy-field flow (dynamic ground), to ‘local status’. lao tsu did a good job of explaining this in the tao te ching. he noted that ‘mountains wear down’ (they are not really in the plural since the are just tips poking out of an unbounded lithic unum) and the ‘valley’, while mountains poke up into it (the local concavities we call ‘valleys’ are unbounded and wrap around the earth, implying, at the same time, convexity or hermaphrodism. that is the form of the lithic surface and the form of the valley is just one form seen from two different perspectives.

      we just make this stuff up, these notions of ‘locally existing objects’ and ‘local agency’, there is no basis in reality for them (everything is in flux in the long term view).

      in the space on the surface of a sphere (this is a ‘real’ space), there are no reference points so there is no ‘direction’ and thus the notion of a ‘vector’ is without meaning (einstein had to upgrade to ‘tensors’ to describe what goes on in curved spacetime). ‘direction’ is a mathematical concept that requires us to impose a euclidian space frame. it is a ‘convention’.

      in a space without reference points, we are fully able to ‘navigate’ but our movements depend upon the spatial relations between the continually gathering and regathering dynamic figures/forms. it is like we are the flow of a busy freeway, we just look for openings and in moving into them, we are at the same time opening and closing spaces and everyone is doing this under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, and our primary approach to navigation is to go where the holes open up for us, and only secondarily do we have some sense of a fixed destination.

      in the flow of the freeway of life, ‘life’ is where we keep asserting into holes that open up for us (we take our canoe down the channels there were there before we came). but of course, our ego (a cultural tradition) has us write up our resumés as if our local agency was the ‘driver’. the son of the rich white man writes up his resume the same as the son of a poor black man and we attribute where they go to their own individual ‘local forcing’, in the same manner as our habit is to say that ‘the colorado river carved out the grand canyon’. in reality, spatial-forcing precedes local-forcing.

      but never mind, in the space on the sphere of the earth, ‘direction’ is meaningless, except by abstract conventions (euclidian space) and when we navigate, we don’t navigate by direction (the notion of a trajectory is analytical backfill, as is the resumé), we go where the spatial-relational holes open up for us.

      this is where i wanted to go with the notion that the community dynamic transcends the individual dynamic. if you imagine a bunch of ants on the surface of a reference-devoid sphere, ‘direction’, if we want to call it that (it is the analytical backfill for our moving into holes that offer easy passage) is relative to the ‘configuration’ and the configuration is in continual flux. as mathematicians point out, the klein bottle also has this characteristic that it contains itself. as with the surface of a sphere, ants can walk all over the surface of a klein bottle without hitting a boundary. the outside and the inside are one surface. that is, there is no outside which is separated from inside in this curved space. when the collective/community of ants move about in this space, the ant-islands and the ant-channel banks derive from the dynamic spatial configuration and so does the flow of ants in the ant-channel-banks and around the ant-islands. in this space, then, the dynamic figures (islands) and dynamic ground-flow are one thing. there is no ‘split’ between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, between ‘female’ and ‘male’, between ‘spatial-forcing’ and ‘local-forcing’, … they are one and the same and it is just our visual sensing that has us focus on ‘local forcing’ and by so doing, notionally implying the passivity or non-participation of the spatial terrain. that’s where our work resumés come from, that’s where our notion that ‘the colorado river carved out the grand canyon comes from; i.e. it imputes first cause CREATIVE POWERS to the ‘local agent’ and petrifies or pacifies the terrain that is the ‘local agent’s’ ‘theatre of operations’.

      more than this, the collective which is the source of the changing configuration and the continually unfolding holes or spatial openings of less resistance that inductively shape our movements (after being spatially induced to move, we insist that our internal purpose was the true source of our motile behaviour, and the evidence that it was spatially forced is not to be had since what is visible and persists is merely the path which we say was ‘carved out’ by the local causal agent, as if the female spatial aspect had nothing to do with it). but the female spatial is constituted by the way the community/collective is configured (and this configuration includes everything; i.e. it is the ‘valley’ that is in reciprocal conjugate relation to all things).

      so, whether we are navigating the flow of the freeway (road) or whether we are navigating the flow of the freeway (of life), we don’t know how the configuration is going to unfold (unless we are bullying or bribing folks) so we move into the openings that emerge (and in so doing, close and open openings ourselves) and then proceed to describe this ‘spatially-forced’ process as if it were ‘locally-forced’ by ourselves (the description we put in our resumés, where we falsely present ourselves as local organisms with our own locally originating (internal process driven) behaviour, as if we were fully and solely responsible for ploughing ‘our’ furrow in a passive ground-receptacle.

      here, then, is where i would ‘equivalence’ the respective rhetoric in our (probably common) understandings. your ‘idiot’ who puts RT over CT is my ‘man who, like a destination-oriented power-boater, believes his resumé [i.e. he believes in a locally-forced source of social-terrain variation], and your ‘non-idiot’ who puts CT over RT is my ‘man who accepts, like the harmony-cultivating-journey-oriented sail-boater, that his resume is ‘analytical backfill’ [i.e. he believes in a spatially-forced source of social-terrain variation].

      to me, the notion of a ‘brain’ (in the standard sense rather than in your intended sense) as the sourcing seat of ‘local-forcing’ is more ‘analytical backfill’. it is useful to reflect back on a journey, just as a sailboater does, but the sailboater will admit that his historical ports of call resulted from him being blown off course; i.e. from orienting first and foremost on putting his vessel in the service of sustaining harmony with the dynamic ground he is included in.

      this is, in my view, also the split in the global warming debate between those that argue for ‘local [GHG]-forcing of climate variation’ (powerboaters) and those that argue for ‘celestial/spatial-forcing’ (sailboaters). e.g. Al Gore claimed that the variation in communications infrastructure known as the internet was ‘locally-forced’ [by himself] whereas many would say that it was spatially-forced since Peer-to-Peer communications was an implicit need in the social habitat, waiting to be satisfied, but which was resisted by the Master-Slave communications orthodoxy (e.g. those who believed in communications being driven on a ‘need to know’ basis, wherein the next ‘higher level’ determined what the next lower level ‘needed to know’).


    • ellocogringo  On January 26, 2010 at 5:17 am

      Aha! I see what the problem is. The “mental operator is the Fourier Transform as it applies to how we see the world. The minds operate on at least 3 levels, probably more. one is how we see the world. (axion level) IE In the right mind we see the world in the frequency domain, this is the rotating vectors. The left mind interprets this in the time domain throws away a dimension BUT adds interpretations of the rotating vectors as color, sound and time. This has nothing to do with idiots. Another level is how we think about the world (dendrite level). The right mind muses with a boolean network with possible outputs of A or B or both or neither, It is a parallel level that requires the holding of several concepts at one time. This is where the idiots and non-idiots comes in. This is the part that is hijacked by imprinting by religion, education etc. The left mind uses a binary network with an A or B output. It is a serial network that only allows one truth. Evaluations are performed by each mind using two different logic tree and the results compared. (Is this single conclusion (left mind) consistent with with my previous experience?) The third level is how we feel about things, ie how much intensity should we attach to the logical conclusions It is an aggregate and accumulate process. IE the last time I bonked polly protohuman, how many times did the alpha male hit me and how hard. (endoplasmic reticulator). If that’s not bad enough, a chaotic pattern is synthesized by the firing of the neurons by a process similar to conway’s game of life, and more accurately cellular automata. This is the patterns they see on the MRI scans and provides the means of storing data. (holography, recursion, etc. whatever you want to call it, the words don’t exist) This is a link to a basic explanation of the Fourier process which is the part of all this gibberish you should be interested in. I haven’t posted this yet because I haven’t edited it. This is what the hoochie-koochie is doing to my mind. play the sound file and click where appropriate. I’ve tried to set the blog up in some kind of order but everything is happening at once and is interactive. Top down thinking doesn’t work here. You should be good at this.
      Later Walt

    • ellocogringo  On July 5, 2010 at 1:11 pm

      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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: