Reindeer

Reindeer

Sigh!

You are missing the points. (there are two) As far as I can see the last person to understand the nature of the universe was Plato. There is not one tip of the iceberg but two seperate and discinct tips of two seperate and distinct icebergs. I’ll try another analogy, (I’ve lost count how many that is) we’ll keep this with scientists studying reindeer herders. In the west the scientists use digital (top down)computers to analyze the movements of said reindeer herders. In russia they use analog (bottom up) computers to analyze the same. The more focused the view the closer these results compare but the more difuse the view the more these results diverge. As long as we remain within the narrow window we evolved to perceive the world through, the results are fairly consistant, or at least not inconsistant. Neither result is right, neither is wrong. To obtain the optimum result, however, the results must be compared, and discrepancies understood. The problem, Mr Ted is not which view is right, but which is less wrong in regard the particular problem being analyzed. “If we apply the top down result what does the bottom up result tell us about what will happen?” The western approach will kill off the herd, the russian approach will starve the nenet”? The nenete approach works. The Russians think the west is wrong, the west thinks the russians are wrong. But what neither realizes is that they are both wrong. The reindeer herders behave as they do because the results of the two computers they are using (inside the skull) give consistent results when they behave as they do. you are de-bugging the wetware (taking things apart, differentiating whatever) trying to figure it out, whereas the reindeer herders are differentiating AND integrating, comparing the results and acting accordingly. Non-adherants to dogma are called heretics, by the way.

The right mind is basically a data accumulation correlation device, (inclusionary) while the left mind is primarily a data discarding analysis mechanism (exclusionary) so you’re right . The scientific method can’t prove shit, it can only disprove something.

SVP

Call of the cosmos A new science paradigm SVP

http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cos7.html

Trifecta

using plato’s model
1) reality (ether)
2) what we see of reality (shadows)
3) what we think of what we see  (mythos, logos)

1 is indeterminate

2 is perceived in the frequency domain and interpreted in the time domain. neither is reality

3 the perception is evaluated boolean, the interpretation is evaluated binary

“……..postulate the existence of a new form of matter, ether”  (Space/Time continuum)

As far as I can tell, I’m the only person who understands what Plato was saying.  He did pretty good when you consider that all he had to work with was earth, wind, fire and water.  But then he didn’t have his mind screwed up with the Aristotelian Brain Fart.  (A degree from MIT) Operating on the engineering level rather than the scientific level.  Fine for building bridges, but sucks for scientific enquiry.  Shadows Duality Einstein

The word is not the concept

Building Blocks

Of Whatever

This is in response to your comment on the APN walt, you miss the point. what i am talking about cannot be broken down into two types of computation (bottom-up and top-down). i am talking about two different sources of behaviour, one is computational and the other is not. 1. either top-down digital computer analysis or bottom-up analogue computer simulation. 2. direct orchestration/organization of form, behaviour and organization by the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation. the nenets let their behaviour be orchestrated the dynamics of the space they are included in (2), there is no computation, bottom-up or top-down in the process. if they reindeer move on (if the dynamic milieu they are in transforms), the nenets move on so as to sustain a resonant inner-outer relation. this is NOT the thought-informed purpose-directed behaviour that science (most science) constrains itself to. simulation (bottom-up analogue computation) is a replication of what may be going which does not give an understanding of how such behaviour unfolds. in order to understand how it unfolds one has to be included in the dynamic, in the manner that geese are sustain a resonant relation with the dynamic milieu they are conditioning. our form, behaviour, organization are not, at the base of it, thought-informed and purpose directed. in other words, our form, behaviour, organization do not have to be understood as pushing out of the interior of ourselves. in the overall scheme (natural order) of things, our emergent form, our behaviour and our collective organization is orchestrated/organized by the dynamics of the milieu that we are conditioning with our dynamics at the same time as its dynamics are conditioning our dynamics. this is the relationship between storm-cells and the flow of the atmosphere, and my view is that it is the relationship between the organism and its milieu; i.e. it is a continuing ‘coniunctio’. meanwhile, we can if we want ’see ourselves’ as a ‘thinking machine’ with locally originating thought-informed, purpose-directed form, behaviour, organization. if we do that makes us into a ‘thinking machine’ and we can think into ourselves two modes of thinking in our machine, bottom-up and top-down, but that is all confined to our thinking-machine view of self. if we suspend that (which mostly comes from language and abstractions), then we are free to let our behaviour and organization be orchestrated by the dynamics of the milieu in which we are included. our thinking machine view of ourself as a thinking machine is idealization that should not be confused for reality.

Answer
can’t you see you’re only working the logic half way? as is schrodinger. you are exibiting the same thought flaw, albeit in reverse, that you ascribe to your antagonists, the top downers, the yangers? i’ll try thinking machine, maybe i can get past the block. man is the only thinking machine, of the uncountable number of thinking machines that comprise the universe that can “view itself as a thinking machine.”. roughly halfway between the quanta thinking machine (electron analog?) and the big thinking machine (the universe) whatever words, concepts, analogies, visualizations etc you use you’ve got to put the snakes’s tail back in the snake’s mouth, else the logic is flawed. IF, and only if, you can identify the quanta thinking machine, you’ve got a wrap. a workable model from which the nature of the universe can be determined. However, this model is only one of many workable models, and, if accepted will be turned into dogma, a TRUTH instead of a truth, and be almost immediately shut down by the “scientific method”, and we will return to prosecution of metaphors. Plato, Newton, Eddington and Einstein could see the problem. As SAE says, we need to make a study of “and” that’s my point.

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

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown, and lo, it is us. – Arthur Eddington

got another hit on schrodinger’s “one mind”, elevating it to “best answer to date” halfway there.

Gotta look at the “and” big guy.

walt

Dali Time

“Time is just the mind’s way of keeping everything from happening at once” – el Loco Gringo

“This distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion” – Albert Einstein

“Time is totally indistinguishable from directions in space” – Feynman

“Time has no beginning, no end” – Steven Hawking

el Loco Gringo, Einstein are right. (Time is an artifact) Feynman is somewhat right. Hawking is wrong. I understand what’s happening. I know what time is. And it’s provable, by the scientific method. (not really, the scientific method is flawed, but it will prove it in the eyes of the idiots)

Go to www.ellocogringo.wordpress.com>letters to DrB>DB-20 & DB-21 (they’re expunged). The password is my first name spelled backwards. Let me know if this works and I’ll send another password. Else, I’ll deliver them. I figure I’ve got till the end of the year, the window is closing.

Reference www.everythingforever.com

also perceiving reality, secret-1 and secret-2 on that last SD. What I am positing is that time is an artifact. The implications are profound. I found the answer in the geophysical basket. The mind is INCREDIBLE. It is doing something that all the computing power in the world can’t do. RSVP walt

“I may be crazy, but it’s kept me from going insane”

Squishy

“In spite of having successfully used analysis (i.e. “taking things apart”) as a powerful tool for centuries, science is converging on the nondual. Cosmologists seek a first cause for the universe. Physicists look for the ultimate constituent of matter. Neurophysiologists attempt to correlate physiological observables with reported experiences of nonduality. Transpersonal psychologists investigate the effects of these experiences on human mental health. Deep ecologists explore the potential consequences of nondual understanding on long term global health. Mathematics practiced with love and devotion has been described as communion with the nondual Divine.” – SAND

Hmmm! My mind has not been crippled by an education in physics so I may have a little more insight into the topic. Every physicist knows the universe is of a wave nature but no one understands it. Simply put, the universe ain’t euclidean. applying words like gravity, space, dimension to the universe is like saying that purple is fuzzy, and green is hard. it’s jaberwocky talk. However there are no words that adequately describe the nature of the universe so the best we can hope for is to append “what we perceive as” to all of the cartesian words. I use the word “squishy”. “gravity is a suishy word to describe the the wave nature of reality.” Anyone who can “prove” or ‘disprove” the universe using methods suitable only for a euclidean view hasn’t proven anything except that he’s an idiot. Append the aforementioned “what we perceive as” to all of the squishy words I use. Picture the universe as a snake eating it’s tail. Since the universe is infinite (at least from our perspective) and we aren’t we have to view the universe in “chunks” deluding us in to perceiving the snake as straight in the same sense that the earth gives us the perception that the world if flat. But the world ain’t flat and the universe ain’t straight. So we confuse our perception of reality with reality. What I call the Aristotelian Brain Fart. If we understand the universe ain’t straight, we also understand that the head and the tail are the same point in the same sense that if we understand that the earth ain’t flat we understand that measuring it with straight lines won’t work. understanding that the universe ain’t straight, may allow us to finally get past Plato in understanding. Vector math perhaps? dunno, I’m not a mathematician nor do i care to be. I haven’t read the 2? people you suggested yet, but if they agree with me they’re right if not they are wrong. Plato was right, Aristotle was wrong and science has been screwed up ever since. Instead of inquiry into the unknown by scientists it has become technical dissection of the known by engineers. It is not necessary for Joe sixpack to understand this, but for heaven’s sake a physicist should. Schrodinger’s close but he hasn’t worked the logic both ways. In order to make progress we have to learn to start thinking for ourselves and not dissect the concepts of others deluding ourselves into thinking we are moving forward.

Why can no one see the blue sky? Is this really so hard to understand? This is simple stuff. Try to take that tiny leap.  I weary.

walt

The Snake

Mr T 08/07/10

<my feeling is that ‘intention’ is too small a drive. insofar as cognition is intentional, i think that cognitive engine is too small a notion.>

Again, depends on how small you define intention. The human mind is not the smallest unit of intention. Let me tell you what I thinks happening. It’s a theory I’ve had since 21 or 22, and have found no reason to change since. I’ll start with an observation. Question it if you will, don’t care. I have been aware since maybe 7 or so that we have two cognitive minds. Used to get me in a lot of trouble. My “best answer to date” is “We have two cognitive minds each with it’s own logical and perceptual processing, synchronous and modulated by intensity.” So as not to get tangled up in words, I will use cartesian words to describe the perception process and Aristotelian words to describe the thought process. Append “what we perceive as” or “what we think of as” where appropriate.

Consider the snake eating it’s tail as an analogy for the universe. Since the universe is infinite and we aren’t we have to envision it in “chunks” which gives the impression that the snake is straight in the sense that standing on the surface of the earth gives us the impression that the earth is flat. The minds are optimized for survival in a narrow window about midway between the mouth and the tail. The more we zoom in on this window the crisper this impression becomes and the more we zoom out the squishier it becomes. This “viewing reality in chunks” establishes artificial end points. Lets take your beloved hurricanes which are about midway between air and atmosphere (the endpoints) or mankind where the endpoints are the individual and society. These ideas are fairly easy to wrap our heads around but ignore all that falls outside of whatever tunnel we happen to be looking through. If we zoom all the way out we find that the mouth and tail of the snake are the same thing. Yet, we still act as if the snake were straight. We used to ascribe the obvious discrepancies to god, and now ascribe them to quantum mechanics on one end and parallel universes on the other or describe them in terms of probabilities or percentages forgetting that the snake ain’t straight and they are at the same point. Consider your question “is space making atoms or are atoms making space?” the answer is yes. It’s the same thing. They are both of a wave nature. The atom described in particle terms of electron and proton with the neutron a kludge to make the equations balance and pretend the snake is straight. The same at the other end with parallel universes or multi dimensions thrown in to pretend the snake is straight. But the snake ain’t straight. There are no multi dimensions. There is no 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd dimensions either. Back to intention which you picked as an endpoint for this particular discussion. Where is the other endpoint? (keeping in mind that the snake ain’t straight) I would say that the macro intention is the sum of the micro intentions. God? If you want to describe the universe in purposeful terms. They are equivalent. On the “intention” scale, we’re probably about midway.

The minds work the same way no matter which tunnel we’re looking through.

The snake ain’t straight

it ain’t real.

MCAS

Walt OPL

The tao TOE

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

“We have two cognitive minds each with it’s own logical and perceptual processing, synchronous and modulated by intensity.” – el Loco Gringo

1.Axon level.  there are two ways of experiencing the world, frequency domain (yin, perception, right mind) and time domain (yang, interpretation, left mind)2 Dendrite level And there are two ways of thinking about this experience boolean/parallel (yin, mythos, right mind)  binary/serial (yang, logos, left mind)

3 none of this is reality (tao, ether, universe), but only our perception (squishy) and interpretation (squishy) of reality (ether) which some people call god, one mind, big hoochie koochie, space/time continuum, whatever.

4 Modulated by the reticulator, (aggregate and accumulate)

5 Switched by the amygdala

any model of reality that does not take these 5 elements into account is flawed.…...

Here’s a yin/yang mobile of what’s happening,  Plug in whatever duality words you prefer depending on your worldview.  Tao (in this case) doesn’t really care about what the yin and yang “think”  it is up to the yin and yang to work together to achieve feng shui (optimize qi)  Yeah I know it doesn’t adhere to oriental dogma, but they have the Taoist brain fart.

This is the way the minds work, always, every time, under all circumstances, all worldviews, all tunnels, all religions, all ideologies.  It cannot work any other way.  (if it’s healthy)

It this really that hard to understand?

Inside the skull

The rubber ruler

“Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” – Sir Arthur Eddington

Socrates often said that this inner voice, which many times deterred him from doing one thing, never incited him to do something else.

Well, Yeah, it’s basically a bullshit detector.

Consider Ptolemy; He used the epicycles of his planetary model to compute the dimensions of the universe. He estimated the Sun was at an average distance of 1210 Earth radii while the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars was 20,000 times the radius of the Earth.

It is in the nature of the mind to make sense of the universe. Even if there is no sense there. That is, after all, what differentiates us from animals. His calculations concerning the movement of the planets and stars were ingenious, they were elegant, they were practical, they were wrong. The math is not the physics. I don’t mean to cast asparagus on him, just to point out that he did not have the relevant data to tinker with. He was using a rubber ruler to measure the universe, stretching and twisting it until the observed data fit the theoretical data. The same is true of the dodecahedron envisioned by Plato and the modern day Lisi. These theories have beauty, but they are wrong. Conventional wisdom in physics builds on the concept of the space/time continuum as envisioned by Einstein. This has led to bizarre, convoluted theories of the universe, string theory (actually something there) parallel universes, big bang, dark matter etc. The word “probabilities” is a bullshit trigger. Like saying “half of all children in school are performing below level” and people will pontificate on the profundity of the concept. But you haven’t actually said anything. Until you can say “Is” in place of “Probabilities” it’s bullshit.

“Any measurement of the universe that does not take into account the mind is flawed because it is the instrument we use” – Robert Anton Wilson

My experience has shown me that conventional wisdom is ALWAYS wrong. (My bullshit detector goes off) Conventional wisdom only indicates that they are locked into a mental framework that precludes new concepts. They are stupid. And stupid is forever, you can’t fix stupid. Using this criteria, it can be seen that 99% of physical theories are bullshit. They are using a rubber ruler. Lisi is at least thinking outside the box.

Geoff Haselhurst> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Milo Wolff> http://www.quantummatter.com/

are unquestionably correct in their vision of the universe, and may have not only “The best answer to date” but “The best answer possible”, considering the indeterminate nature of the frequency domain.

As to visualizations, as the math is not the physics, the word is not the concept. I envision the “cosmic standing wave” as being vibrations, with a rotational component, a beat of 8 and negentropic. If you want an interpretation of reality, look out the window. If you want a perception, that’s hinky. I’ve put together a visualization called the “Big hoochie koochie”. Be sure to play the audio. Find it here> http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/the-x-files/big-hoochie-koochie/.

As absurd as this is, I challenge ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG. And remember, I do not accept math.

The whole & the WHOLE

1. “Is knowledge a subset of that which is both true and believed?”
   

4. I’m not sure why you think the re-integrated whole is less than whole; to distinguish parts is not to break them up. It might be argued that the new whole is greater — though I believe it is actually the same size. The ancients may not have known the details we have, but they actually looked at the sky on a regular basis, and that put them far ahead of most of us. In any case, we need something larger to challenge our imagination in a manner commensurate with what we know from other fields of knowledge.

5. on August 6, 2010 at 9:37 pmellocogringo

   hi Mr Mary
   What we perceive of reality is a sub-set of reality forming patterns in the right mind in the frequency domain. The is interpreted in the left mind by a process equivalent to the Fourier transform in the time domain, (the output is quantified, a dimension is thrown away and time, color and sound are added) If this data is reintegrated what is left is less than reality by itself, since it is quantified it is less than what we originally perceived, and even less than reality. This re-integration is confused for reality in physics (and all observations). It is what I call the Aristotelean brain fart, a built in logic flaw in the brain, which leads to such silliness as parallel universes, quantum mechanics. In physics all physicists know that the universe is of a wave nature, but do not understand it, and continue to act as if the universe was of a particle nature. In addition, integral calculus IS bottom up thinking as applied to a cartesian model and differential calculus IS top down thinking as applied to a cartesian model. BUT the universe ain’t cartesian. Newton used god to balance the equations. Modern science, Eschewing god, uses quarks, parallel universes, multi dimensions to balance the equations. Ted Lumley posed the question “does the universe make electrons or do electrons make the universe?” setting aside for the moment that electron is an invalid concept for what is a wave (whorl, node, unfolding in the now?) sorry, there are no words for this. the answer is yes. so at one end of the Physics tunnel we are looking through end points are set by our inability to contain the entirety inside the skull. one endpoint is quantum mechanics, the other is parallel universes. my feeling is the two are just two different perspectives, results of the Aristotelean brain fart. I think i said this better in a comment which I posted. just a minute. Ah found it thanks for waiting. the topic of the thread was actually duality but the minds work the same way no matter what question is posed, that just depends on what tunnel you’re looking through, and what wetware you’ve been imprinted with.

   CircleJerk Calculus Plato/Aristotle

   Please note I am not talking about physics per se, but how the mind distorts how we think about physics. I prefer to leave physics and math to those who are interested in such things. But whatever we look at the whole is less than the WHOLE. To complete the thought, no yoga devotee is confused by the two slot problem but is baffled by the scientific method, which he views as circular reasoning. IE start with the answer and differentiate it to reach the question. If you’re going to build a bridge calculus is perfectly acceptable. If you are trying to determine the nature of the universe it is inadequate. Vector math MAY give a better answer, dunno, I’m not a mathematician. but it will still not be WHOLE.

   the brain is the instrument we use to observe the universe and what is happening inside the skull must be taken into account.

   “We have two cognitive minds each with it’s own logical and perceptual processing, synchronous and modulated by intensity. (weighting)” – el Loco Gringo

   Or………..I could be full of shit, I am crazy, don’t you know?
   walt

   ps I didn’t say the whole was less than whole, i said the whole was less than WHOLE.  That’s the entire point