Mental Hardware

Frequency/Time

“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

Negentropy1 Negentropy2 Negentropy3 Dogma Time/Freq RideOnTheWildSide Vibroseis Visualizations TimeTranslator Spectrum Great Mysterious MRI’s

SVP

Call of the cosmos A new science paradigm SVP

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

Subset

What we perceive of reality is a sub-set of 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.

http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/the-circle-jerk/

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.

Paradigms

Just to put this in perspective. Inclusional People capable of understanding Emile in the A or B or C mode is .047% of the population. People capable of understanding Emile in the AB or AC or BC mode is 20% of the population. The rest are idiots. (used in the clinical sense)

Lisi’s TOE

“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

Check this out, this is the pre-print for Lisi’s paper. I’ve read it and the logic and data seems valid, but it doesn’t “feel right” somehow. It does hold together and is not inconsistent. (that’s annoying) The flaw of course is his use of dimension (particularly 4th) The fact that it was largely ignored by mainstream physics adds further credibility in my mind. I’d say he was one step up from Plato. Notice he eschews calculus, as did Mr Milo and Mr Geoff.

also annoying was a person explaining evolution in hydraulic terms.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770?context=hep-th

“An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything is a preprint proposing a basis for a unified field theory, which attempts to describe all known fundamental interactions in physics, and to stand as a possible theory of everything. The preprint was posted to the physics arXiv by Antony Garrett Lisi in November 2007,[1] and was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[2] The title is a pun on the algebra used, the Lie algebra of the largest “simple,” “exceptional” Lie group, E8.

Lie groups

[show]Classical groups
[show]Simple Lie groups
[show]Other Lie groups
[show]Lie algebras
[show]Structure of semi-simple Lie groups
[show]Representation theory
[show]Lie groups in Physics
v • d • e
The theory “received accolades from a few physicists amid a flurry of media coverage,” but also “widespread skepticism.”[3] Scientific American reported in March 2008 that the theory was being “largely but not entirely ignored” by the mainstream physics community, with a few physicists picking up the work to develop it further.[4] In a critical paper[5] published in Communications in Mathematical Physics, Jacques Distler and Skip Garibaldi state that Lisi’s theory, and a large class of related models, cannot work.

As of May 2008 Lisi’s preprint was the most downloaded article in the arXiv.[6]” – wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything

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

Nostalgia

ain’t what it used to be

“When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That’s relativity” – Albert Einstein

Retro Physics

What I find interesting about this “new” toe is that it is recursive. IE in the sense that it is the same concept viewed from different perspectives. The Lisi theory is causing quite an uproar in the quantum physics field. Most criticism centers on math. BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE MATH IS NOT THE PHYSICS. While this is way outside my field, it makes sense. If one sets aside the assumption made by Einstein that time is the 4th dimension, it all clicks into place. (Time may be an artifact of the mind used to make sense of motion) In any case, it can be tested. Lisi is at the least, not traveling the path most traveled. Don’t pass this up because you’re not interested in quantum physics. It speaks to the core of conceptualization. This is pertinent to understanding the mind. Check out the two links. The theory is identical. Plato called the unknown and unseen dimension “ethers” Lisi calls them Parallel universes. They are both right. This is the Theory Of Everything that Einstein was seeking. It explains the particle problem, the particle decay problem, the measurement problem and the two slot problem. “Most of the information here, from a technical aspect goes way over my head, however, I couldn’t help noticing an interesting geometric coincidence (maybe I am just attempting to create a connection where one does not exist). The two geometric representations on pages 19 and 20 are strikingly similar to that of “Metatron’s Cube” which is a figure containing all five platonic solids and has some religious connotation. From wiki “The simplest means of constructing Metatron’s Cube is to begin with a cube flattened along a space diagonal, such that it becomes a 2D figure, equivalent to a regular hexagon divided via its own diagonals into six equilateral triangles. The vertices of this 2D figure are then connected with additional lines. Several steps later, the full Metatron’s Cube figure is formed. This method requires dividing vertices according to the golden ratio. There is also a method of construction from the Flower of Life. The cube resembles the fourth dimensional analog of the cube, or the Tesseract.” Merkaba, also spelled Merkabah, is the divine light vehicle allegedly used by ascended masters to connect with and reach those in tune with the higher realms. “Mer” means Light. “Ka” means Spirit. “Ba” means Body. Mer-Ka-Ba means the spirit/body surrounded by counter-rotating fields of light, (wheels within wheels), spirals of energy as in DNA, which transports spirit/body from one dimension to another. The flower of life also shows the same relationships. and then there’s the Platonic Solids Kepler Plato’s dodecahedron Lisi’sdodecahedron Plato’sTOE PlatonicSolids4D 4DSphere Here is the Solid that Aristotle did not include in his regular solids. The missing dimension. Why? Because it was irrational. IE not subject to ratios. Aristotle changed the meaning of the word irrational to illogical, which remains to this day. (Aristotle was an idiot). In any case, Plato was mightily impressed by these five definite shapes that constitute the only perfectly symmetrical arrangements of a set of (non-planar) points in space, and late in life he expounded a complete “theory of everything” (in the treatise called Timaeus) based explicitly on these five solids. The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron.

I consider the “Platonic solids” scenario to be a negentropic red herring with the concept of the sphere being one fading in and out of favor depending on the zeitgeist of the scientific thinkers. The concept is still popular among pseudo-thinkers. The mind, being a sub-set of the universe, is also negentropic. Because of this man continuously tries to make sense of the data perceived (Even if there is no sense there.) To the right is the solid Aristotle didn’t get, the sphere, it was irrational. (no straight lines) The platonic solids are an interesting data set and various thinkers have tried to make sense of them in a variety of contexts. (after all, that’s what the mind do, “a mind’s gotta do what a mind’s gotta do.”). I have not seen any relevant data that shows any relationship between the platonic solids and the universe (except for a relationship to each other). As much as I hate to quote Freud (I consider him an idiot) I do agree with him on two points.

• “maybe a cigar is just a cigar” IE maybe the image of a cigar in a dream is not a phallic symbol, but just a desire to smoke. Maybe the platonic solids are just what they appear, an interesting data set, with no relationship to anything besides each other.
• The second point, (which I mention only because I can now relegate him into the dust bin), is his observation that all women have a “penis envy”. (It is, after all, such a beautiful thing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIf5363e4&NR=1&feature=fvwp Education has crushed creativity. Robert Anton explains this very well in the below video. He speaks of tunneling and how the oriental and the occidental view life through tunnels which restrict our field of view. Our opinions say more about how the mind works than the world. It is worth pondering what he has to say about not only quantum physics but our view of the world. Robert Anton – Tunneling

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?

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

Negentropy 1

DrB-15

I’ll try another approach. Keeping in mind that what we see is not what we perceive. What we see are systems, what we perceive is an interpretation of what we see. IE the “real” world is not composed of objects, but systems.

Systems share common characteristics, including:

Systems have structure, defined by parts and their composition;

Systems have behavior, which involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, energy or information;

Systems have interconnectivity: the various parts of a system have functional as well as structural relationships between each other. IE Systems are self organizing

Yet most people assume that what they perceive is what they see.

Also keep in mind that people think backwards, IE The see the movement of the tree leaves and assume that to be the cause of wind. They confuse cause and effect. (we evolved to be slaves)

Starting at the bottom, we’ll look at the fabric of the universe. Einstein assumed it to consist of 3 dimensions plus the space/time continuum. But time is not real, it is an interpretation of vectored movement. (direction + amplitude) In the sense that a line is the shadow of a square, a square is the shadow of a cube and a cube is the shadow of a dodecahedron. We can’t see a line but we can perceive it. We can see and perceive a square and a cube. We cannot see or perceive a dodecahedron. So the fabric of the universe consists of 3 dimensions and the ether, as described by Plato, or the 3 dimensions plus a fourth as described by Lisi. (It’s the same thing)

Next up is the atomic level, The electron, proton and neuron are actually shadows of vibrations in the fourth dimension, Fractals are shadows of these vibrations and provide the structure of the universe. (you/re probably wondering right now about what this has to do with PTSD but it’s relevant)

Next up is the neuron, which, in accordance with the laws of the universe is a self organizing system. When it becomes organized we call it a mind. Throughout all of this is the self organizing effect of the vibrations in the 4th dimension. (fractals) In view of the butterfly effect the odds approach infinity that any two minds are alike, although it could be said that most brains are similar. That’s about as indeterminate as you can get.

Next up is society, which again, must conform to the laws of the universe (system). The individual performs the role of the neuron in the mind. The problem is that the individual mind is (usually) flawed and provides negative feedback resulting in a dysfunctional society which affects the individual. (mental disorders) It is pathological to be well-adjusted in a dysfunctional society. It is society which is the collective consciousness, and it is psychotic.

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false ideas about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations) (or things that are there that they can’t see – Walt)

Interestingly, the web seems to be following these same laws of self-organization. We may indeed be approaching the Singularity.

I hope that clears things up

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/allegory_of_the_cave.html