Protected: Kirby 9/18/10

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

Password:

Downloads

This post will be continually updated with downloadable files, check back often

GabrielLafrenierMatterIsMadeOfWaves NolanGasserMiracleMusic Time Pugnacious

Time/Frequency domain

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

“It is interesting to note that there is something in our head that knows how to walk, while we are not consciously aware of it. It is sobering to recognize that there is something in our head that that understands chaotic theory in 13 dimensions, AND CAN MANIPULATE IT, real time.” – el Loco Gringo

“So far all the discussion of sound has centered on its description as fluctuations in air pressure over time. The representation of sound in the time domain is important to understand, but in some ways it is also awkward. For instance, the frequency of a sound is one of its most important physical properties, but determining frequency from a waveform requires making measurements of time intervals and then doing arithmetic. Indeed, for many complex waveforms, where multiple sinusoids of various frequencies are simultaneously present, it is often unclear where the intervals to be measured begin and end. The frequency domain provides an alternative description of sound in which the time axis is replaced by a frequency axis. In the frequency domain, sounds are represented in a frequency by amplitude and/or phase diagram. “ – ASEL

“It’s only complicated if you’re thinking backwards” – el Loco Gringo

Do not go wobbly on me here. Do not allow your mind to boggle. Uncle Walter will make it all better. It is the concept which is important not the math. Indeed the math is irrelevant.

Top down thinking assumes that the time domain is reality and the frequency domain is imaginary. As there is much more information to be gained in the frequency domain it is easier to convert the time domain to the frequency domain, get the answer, (in the frequency domain the answer “just is”) and then convert it back. However, this logic tree is fallacious.

Bottom up thinking shows that the frequency domain is reality and the time domain is imaginary. Indeed, a mathematician capable of thinking in the frequency domain (should such a person be possible) might well wonder why in the world would anyone be interested in so limited a concept as an imaginary “time”. (As I wonder why people are so dumb) The reason of course is that in the time domain information can be categorized. Looking at the header time>frequency>time the calculations cancel out and we are left with frequency IE Reality. In fact, the concept of math is, in and of itself, an artifact, a method of categorizing, quantifying, putting things in baskets.

In fact, EVERYTHING we perceive is only an interpretation of what we see. The shadows Plato was talking about.

Sometimes when we can’t make sense out of something we assume that we are dumb. We do not think of the possibility that perhaps there is no sense there. This should set off a flag, but it doesn’t.

NOW is the time to set the algorithm. The “goal” you were looking for in your logic tree. NOW is the time to use top down thinking. NOW you can start with “The frequency domain is reality” and work downwards to see what that implies. (And the implications are staggering) NOW you can put things in baskets. NOW you can quantify, sort, collate, dissect and mangle the data. NOW you can use the scientific method. (not just yet tho)

As profound as this is, the concept of the ANN is profounder.

“A world of beautiful, loving, compassionate people” – Jill Bolte Taylor

That is my gift to humanity – el Loco Gringo

Time/Freq RideOnTheWildSide Vibroseis Visualizations TimeTranslator Spectrum Emergence Geophysics Nostalgia Great Mysterious

Calculus

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

This is a lead in for Ted Lumley’s excellent paper on calculus. He describes in detail the fallacies associated with applying calculus to complex systems, and how it affects western thought. Calculus is what I call the rubber ruler measuring Shadows. A manefistation of the Aristotelean Brain Fart.

“When you re-integrate the differentiated reality, you are left with a whole that is less than WHOLE.” – Mr Ted

“differentiation undoes the result of integration”. – Harvey Friedman, Concept Calculus

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

Is Calculus Taking Science (And Us) On A Mad Joyride?

Copenhagen

Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein’s comments “I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.”[14] and “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do”.”

This is all inside the skull.  Reality is outside the skull,  What is so difficult to comprehend?

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics as a “real” and complete theory, struggling to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with causality, and protesting against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation.  It’s simple enough, Big Al, Reality is outside the skull.  Consider “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?” Of course it’s not.  As far as you’re concerned.  If you’re not looking at it, you can’t see it.  That is what all your experiments and theories are really telling you.  It’s all inside the skull.  You are doing calculus on interpretations of perceptions of reality.  You’re using a rubber ruler.

Secret-1 Secret-2

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

Contemplating contemplation

Secret-1 Secret-2

observing the observer

“Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed.”

You must ask the proper question if you expect a reasonable answer. The Aristotelean brain fart stinks up the cranium. We have two cognitive minds that project their observations onto the universe. (duality)  This problem is entirely inside the skull, the inability of the scientific method to consider B0ttom up thinking.

Let’s get down to the real nitty gritty.  We view the universe through tunnels which establishes end points. In this case, to put the above observation into more concrete terms. “is space making electrons or are electrons making space?” – Ted Lumley The brain farts limits the question to an either/or answer. Unconsidered is both or neither. So the answer to Mr. Ted is YES. In this case we are looking through the electron/space tunnel through which the space IS the accumulate of electrons. This seeming conundrum is the effect of this projection, not the cause. (People Think backwards)  Time is an artifact.

What is so complicated?  What has happened to the western mind that this seemingly obvious answer isn’t?  Why can no one see the blue sky?  You’re caught up the yin yang wars fighting the battle of MOOT hill.  This is simple shit, folks.  Use that dual core processor  between your ears for something other than keeping your ears apart.  Consider the following.  If you don’t get it, watch it again until you do.  The most profound experiment in the history of mankind and even the guy that did it doesn’t understand what he’s got.  THE BRAIN IS BASICALLY A SELF PROGRAMING AMORPHOUS MASS OF NEURONS!!!

Let’s get down to the real nitty gritty.

You’re just going over the programming code to try to determine the nature of the universe.

It’s all mental masturbation.  How can such a simple thing explode into a library of books at MIT?

Rat Brain Robot

Why do you complexify things?  It’s just mental masturbation.

TheLittleHoochieKoochie The BigHoochieKoochie

Emergence

Making pretty pictures with the MRI to be misinterpreted by Psychologists

Check out this website> Exploring Emergence This is a pretty good  method for seeing how a fluidic system can be synthesized by a binary system.  The original is Conway’s game of life,  computers allowed for more flexibility in rules and quantity of data. ( Cellular automata.)

It seems pretty clear that this is an object, doesn’t it?

But in fact, what appears to be an object is not really an object at all. All that is happening is that little squares on the screen are turning “on” and “off,” following a set of simple rules. And those rules say nothing at all about objects and nothing at all about direction.

We will examine how objects and patterns can arise from simple interactions in ways that are surprising and counter-intuitive. We will present examples with simple squares that turn on and off, but the underlying ideas will provide you with a new perspective for thinking about many phenomena in the everyday world. This is the model for the dynamics of the mind.  Cascade

Bear in mind the the videos are only a 2 dimensional representation of a 4 dimensional process. If dimension applies.  Setting aside for the moment that an MRI only detects the electrical activity of the mind (another mind fart, the brain is chemical, not electrical.  IE the electrical pulsing is a result of chemical activity.)  I think that the brain is synthesizing the pulse patterns.  the patterns make sense but not in a way that would make sense to a (mainstream)  scientist. Here’s another link I found which illustrates what i think is happening, but their explanation sucks.  I haven’t found the original and haven’t  published this yet.  This is squishy^3.  Basically, i think this is what they’re looking at.  They need to hide these MRI machines from psychologists.  Here’s one more complicated>  Sheep & Wolves HowChaosDrivesTheBrain Predator & Prey And heres a couple of Java apps, play> Ripple 2 slot

Keep in mind that these are 2d representations of 3d interpretations of 4d perceptions.  Are we having fun yet?