are mathematical, scientific, aspic people abtract?

Post Reply New Topic

you sound like a systemized computer that usually informs its master.

Odd ... I don't have audio enabled in any of my posts ...

Just re-post your questions in the correct English format, and I'll try to answer them.

it always seems like you get really mad at people who post posts here.

Last edited by jus4u76 on 28 Nov 2008, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not angry at anyone - it's counter-productive to reason and rationality.

Please, just re-post your questions in proper English, and I'll do my best to answer them.

"Are... aspic people abtract?"

Would that be a regular meat jelly aspic, only molded in the shape of a person?


Wikipedia: "Aspic"

*facepalm*

Nice one! Never knew about that before, and quite frankly it sounds a little frightening.

Okay about abstraction...

I have practiced metacognition since I was about the age of 3 (I cant remember much more before then, but I do remember it being new to me at about that age). Furthermore, I compulsively analyze my own metacognitive processes. Recursively, if you will.

This results in a lot of times where A>B>C>D>C>D>C, etc. Basically, I assimilate some information (A) into knowledge (B), and then try to reason out how it fits together in the big picture of things (C). Now, C might be similar to something Ive come across before... thus I come to understand some general principle (D) that ties together several different branches of knowledge (B1, B2, B3, etc), and thus effects a very large number number of seemingly unrelated instances (A1,A2,A3,etc). This reinforces my understanding of C (which functions like a rule of what knowledge is grouped together under my principle D).

C is what it is because of what D is. They both define each other, but have no direct effect on themselves outside of how the other reacts to their changes. In a purely ontological perspective it doesn't matter what knowledge B is grouped together underneath this first level understanding C, C is just a working concept.

D, an advanced understanding of the concepts at work within not just already assimilated information, but of how and why concepts themselves are applied to certain groups of knowledge, can only really be affected by poorly, or inaccurately, defined concepts (much of my processor time, as it were, goes into ferreting out these insufficient concepts), as it is not D that provokes a reaction to A (the information you are provided with, usually your environment and current situation) but C, my working understanding of how knowledge is related to each other. If C is flawed, D becomes flawed, and then the wrong group of knowledge can be associated with A (this seems to be most likely to happen in times of great emotion, stress, or impatience. Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride does this to me too). If you react inappropriately to stimulus A, your whole model begins to change from the ground up as incoming data A conflicts with B and C. It is in this way self regulating, but...

If your model of how spheres of knowledge interact, C, is sufficient and your understanding behind this D is sufficient, you have a scenario where C begets D, begets C, begets D, etc.

The first hint of my epistemological progression towards Taoism was when I had the insight that C and D are immaterial. They might work for all experiences I would ever have in my life (all-A) but they would be flawed in some manner. They do not match perfectly, and infinitely many progressively more accurate approximations would never result in a perfect model. They are merely a tool, designed for a purpose, but not for every eventuality, every instantiation of that purpose (like how a normal screwdriver might be perfect for 99% of jobs, but a specialized screwdriver might be needed for any number of reasons: magnetively sensitive material, small working space, electrical charge, working upside down etc).

Because of this I have the utmost respect and admiration for Kurt Gödel and his insight into resolving the complexity of life.

Taoism gives me further insight. In a sense, it gives me an irrational understanding E that more accurately defined A,B,C, and D then their relation between each other. Because of Taoist teachings I am able to see why C and D are cyclical, contradicting, mutually supporting. I am able to realize that all-A has some perfect-C perfect-D cycle that I can never know. This is called "Tao".

With this concept of Tao (E), I am able to take in sensory input A, understand it B, consider the Tao, and then react to it. Since E approximates an ideal CD cycle, I don't have to worry about it. Ultimately, I would like to be able to drop the understanding B and simply react to my surroundings A, but doing such a thing is very hard. I am working on it.

You may feel swindled by this and think "that's not abstraction beyond metaphor! that's ultimately just discarding higher thought!" and I am conflicted in how to respond. I am constantly observing how E replacing CD effects my behavior, emotions, and cognition. It is a positive change. It is a change that is less complex (though more difficult), that results in a seemingly universal improvement. So while yes, I have dropped some higher thought processes, I never would have arrived at E if it were not for CD cycling incalculably many times in my brain. I ultimately dropped them because they were less fruitful for then E, just as how I have changed C and D all my life when I realized how they were lacking.

Also, I am not sure how to explain it, but some of this has started bleeding over into my mathematics abilities. I am able to see how transformation rules effect number series into other states. Its all done a good job of reinforcing my belief that ALL forms of math are just abstractions on arithmetic, and what we hold as mathematical absolutes (ie, the sine wave, e, pi) are just a common denominator (C) behind a much broader spectrum of problems (D). For example, everything that uses pi with a non-zero exponent is undeniably linked to this sublimely simple, and impossibly complex thing called a circle (E).

EDIT: Argh, just realized I never explicitly stated how I pull metaphor from that process. Building metaphors are the easy part - all you do to address B-1 is to pull from grouping C element B-not-1 and fill in arbitrary details. Since all members of the same C will have the same principles attached to them, B-1 should be able to be explained in terms of B-not-1. With the concept of the Tao, I know that since all-B are part of the same E I can use all-B-not-1 to explain B-1. Its really a pretty nifty trick, as I am able to toy with knowedge that is way above my own understanding by just figuring out which simple thing I know can best be related to it.

Like the concept of spin in point-like particles (such as electrons), where a particle with -NO- volume behaves in a certain way that only things with volume should be able to... they even named the troublesomely complex physics problem after a simple thing you learn as a toddler - spin.

Most metaphors come automatically to me now. Math, well, I hate proofs but like real math. I'm in the middle of doing a term paper, so I cannot talk for long.

I couldn't have put my thoughts into words better myself.

Ha! And here I was thinking I was a crazy person rambling incoherently, and no one would be able to understand me.

I'm glad to find I was so mistaken.

Well, this is very cool. I'd like to try to test to see if I interpret some of your ideas right, by trying to map them to some of my own terminology. If I make mistakes, they are unintentional. I'm not trying to reduce your ideas to already-have-that, just find common language.

That is very cool. I'm interested in "the mathematics of metaphysics" and "metapsychology".



Kind of like semantic mapping?



Let's think about the stuff that relates to both C and D, for any particular event or experience, as being in a "subspace".

D is the principle, or analytic explanation that supports the subspace, while C is the empirical phenomena or symbols that map into the subspace? I'm using the term "symbols" now in the semiotics context.



With your reference to Buddhism, below, have you thought about how delusion, and ego, influence the fallacies that can arise in a false C-D system (flawed description of the thoughtspace that is your subspace supported by C, D). I think of what you are describing, and below, where C and D track off, as being "false consciousness" (delusion, illusion and fallacies)



I think that this particularly happens when your Ego has a stake in a situation, interferes with your perception and starts constructing false realities. Then you get the self-reinforcing "false consciousness" looping where your models and simulations begin to track off and become very inaccurate. People induce delusions in themselves, based on their ego, in certain circumstances. IMO, it would be your C-D looping, in which you have false constructions reinforcing false perceptions and false perceptions reinforcing false constructions.



This is consistent with my thoughts, lately, too. Because the semantic maps (your "C") (my "reference framing, ego ideals, perceptions") and the behavior models (your "D") (my "identity and personality functions') together create the real-world interaction functions for what I consider "the ego", that has lately led me to wonder what real point is there to having identity, personality and other constructions of social mind. Because these ego functions media and oversee our perceptions and projections of reality as we navigate through the world and have experiences, they are clearly serving some critical purpose otherwise they would not have evolved. Lately, I've come to look at Buddhism and consider that these are all part of the world of illusion, especially false constructions of reality that the ego pushes us to engage in. These functions that interpret and map reality experiences, are managed by the ego for some purpose. I have come to view, therefore, the ego and its constructions (identity and personality) as being made up of a toolkit of "tools" that help us avoid having to investigate and "know" everything. So long as we assume that our semantic maps and models of the world (your C and D) are correct, we can interact with them and not have to stop and "learn" every thing in our environment in order to know how to interpret it. I.e. we don't interact with reality, per se, we interact with our egos (and its constructions of identity, personality and perceptions), which is much simpler and faster, and only periodically do we update our egos (our identities, personalities and how we manage our perceptions).



I get this, I really do. According to my own theories, it is possible to eliminate the constant reference-checking and modeling filters that your C and D represent (that correspond to what I call identity and personality functions). What you are doing then is having a direct, immersive experience with reality. That kind of raw, unfiltered experience is a flood of unfiltered information and requires a very clear, very energized and very focused mind. It's an immersive experience of here-and-now unfiltered reality. Yoga and Buddhist meditators strive for this. I think they describe this as a state of being unhindered by the world of illusion and ego.

But it requires a great deal of energy and focus. For an Asperger, you can achieve it for periods of time, but it becomes difficult to maintain when there are sensory overloads, sensory disruptions and other autistic experiences that are quite natural but not really in our control.

However, the meditation, yoga practices and mind training that Buddhism provides, do tend to help support this kind of mind.



It is many times useful to jettison one's reference-framing and identity and personality constructs of the Ego. Remember, in my theories, these functions and constructs only help simplify the processing load of an overwhelmed and distracted mind. To the extent that, as you said earlier, one can never maintain perfect models (D functions) or perfectly accurate semantic references (C maps), if you use your ego, you lose accuracy and precision in your thinking and you lose groundedness in your experience of reality. If you don't use your C (maps) and D (models) functions, tho, you have to have your intellect processing in real time all the time. You have to have an innate knowledge of the world around you and a highly centered rationalization schema with very universal frameworks. In other words, it's not easy building an enlightened mind. It can take decades to learn and mature before reaching enlightenment. During that time, most practitioners struggle to free themselves from their illusions and egos and succeed to a greater or lesser extent as they develop skills.



Wow. You're pretty good. I didn't think anyone else was thinking like this, too. I have a whole class of cognitive functions that I refer to as "transform functions". They help map data and ideas between different parts of the brain and between thought-spaces (subspaces). For example, if you are a good team leader in football in college, you can later apply those leadership skills in running a business. There is a whole class of functions that serve the purpose of extracting models of thought behavior from things we have already learned how to do and applying them to new reference data (your "C") to figure out how to achieve some purpose. These transform functions are obviously mathematical transforms.

I don't believe all forms of math are abstractions on arithmetic. That is where we part ways. I believe that all arithmetic is the application of mathematical abstractions as applied to spaces of numbers. There is no difference between mathematics and mind. But that is a whole other topic...



LOL. You got distracted by your desire to share your ideas.

Great! Thanks.