Tag Archives: Aristotle

The Evolution on Concepts

6 Apr

The concept of a claw hammer did not just pop into the human mind from out of non-existence.

First was the concept of a rock.

Somewhere someone realized you could pound with a rock. Perhaps this person broke nuts open with a rock.
The first stage of the concept of a hammer was born.

Somewhere someone threw a rock at something. Perhaps it was a nut in a tree. Trying to knock it down.
The first stage of the concept of a rocket was born.

Somewhere someone used a stick. Perhaps it was to dig beetles out of the ground.
The first stages of the concept of a fork and a spear were born.

Somewhere someone put a rock on the end of a stick.
The second stage of the concept of a hammer was born.

Just as humanity evolved as a species so did humanities concepts.

And here is a crucial fact:
Every concept humanity has ever developed has survival value.
I have never found a single concept that did not have survival value at the time it was conceived. Some of those concepts have had counter survival value when circumstances changed and select humans refused to revise their concepts. But every human concept has survival value in the right circumstances.

I state that concepts evolve.
This is easily demonstrated. Scientific concepts show a clear path of evolution.

Other creatures also have concepts.
Look at dogs and cats. They both have a concept of what is food and what is not food. They share a concept of humanity as a source of food and shelter.
Obviously there was a time when humans were not sources of food and shelter for either dogs or cats. At that time dogs and cats would not have this concept of humans. This concept had to grow over time.
This simple demonstration shows not only that animals do have concepts but also shows that their concepts also evolve.
In this we are not alone.

We can look at a bug as having a concept of what food is. Of what a predator is. In the case of ants and bees they must have some concept of home and community. Perhaps nothing like we humans have, but something that suffices.

It can be said that certain plants, those that turn their leaves or flowers toward the sun as it passes, have some rudimentary concept of pleasure if nothing else. It might be nothing more than warmth.

Each creature has exactly the number, or set (if you will) of concepts that it needs to survive.

The Concept Line™ starts at the vaguest sensory awareness.
A plant has, through warmth, light, or some other means, a sensory awareness of the sun. We know this because so many plants visibly react to the sun.
Whether the plant has any sensory memory of the sun when it is not present is something we cannot determine with any current or proposed technology I am aware of. However it has been demonstrated that plants discharge measurable energy when in the presence of someone who has abused them, say torn off their limbs.
Thus we can contend that plants have a rudimentary concept of pain and pleasure.

Moving along the concept line we can show that insects have a rudimentary concept of food and predator.
We know this simply because any bug will go after that which it considers food, be it a leaf or another bug, and will avoid, and or fight, those things that will in turn eat them.

Many fish live in schools. Some insects live in hives. This indicates a rudimentary sense of community.
Primates go so far as to show complex social structure and even politics.

Humanities concepts have not only evolved, but can be traced through anthropology.

Even more interestingly the human evolution of concepts can be demonstrated in its children. A baby has the most minimum concepts possible for a human being to have. As the child develops physical abilities and experience more concepts develop. For example babies are not born with depth perception, it develops later, and even then it takes time and experience for a child to judge exactly how far away an object is. Then even more time to judge how much time it will take the object, say a car, to reach them at a given speed.

However having a concept is not sufficient.

In fact having a concept, in and of itself, is only a survival mechanism only up to a point in the evolutionary ladder.
At some point what is done with concepts is more important than having concepts.

Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
I say the unexamined concept is not worth having.

So at the far end of our Concept Line™ , not at the very end, we mark a point at which concepts are not simply held, they are manipulated.

 

 

 
© 2014 All Rights Reserved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Non-Hammer Hammers

26 Jan

The most obvious non-hammer hammers are air hammers and electric hammers. They look nothing like hammers but they perform the function and are readily accepted as such.

So what is the point of that?

A nail gun is a hammer.

As we go down to lower level structures we can trace two paths for a hammer concept.

One is a direction we are not going to pursue.  Very far, anyway. But, lets take a whiff of it. How far it can go. And perhaps why. Or  perhaps we should explore why first.

Oh, pardon me.

This is a blog proclaiming philosophy and I’m not being logical. There is no logical progression to this section of the blog at all.

That is because I am engaging in a Metalog. A MetaBlog.  I first came across the term metalog in Gregory Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind”. If you are not familiar with Gregory Bateson, I cannot recommend him too highly.

Discussing the parts in a way that allows them to all come together in an understandable way. This is because we are dealing with the imagination, which resides in the deeper structures of the mind rather than logic which resides totally on the surface.

This is why logic is so complex and requires so much “intelligence” to be able to follow it. Because it is so divorced from reality. It is Extreme Surface Structure™ and Extreme Low Context Structure™. Once it has reached the maximum Extreme Low Context Surface Structure™ it becomes almost totally divorced from reality.

In order to keep it grounded its practitioners most negotiate a bizarre maze of rules, mostly called “fallacies” that appear to the uninitiated as unending and unimaginably complex.

Imagination is both simpler and requires less “intelligence” because it is reality itself. In fact it only requires the amount of intelligence required to negotiate the context it is faced with.

Which means an intelligence only requires the imagination that is required for the survival of the life form it inhabits.

Thus an army of ants only needs the amount of imagination required to use leaves to cross the water which prevents their progress.  Extreme Low Context Surface Thinkers™ ask, “How can an ant be so intelligent as this?”

A question that is nearly impossible to answer.

A Full Context Deep Structure Thinker™ asks, “How could an ant imagine this?”

In other words the question becomes, “What sensory experience can an ant bring to this problem of crossing water?” When asked in this way it becomes obvious. Ants walk on leaves. They have had that experience. Leaves float on water. Not sure how an ant would / could perceive that. One guess would be an accidental event some ants have survived.

Extreme Low Context Surface Structure Thinkers™ operate on the assumption the mind is designed for the purpose of discovering and determining Truth.

A Full Context Deep Structure Thinker™ assumes that all experience is processed by the mind for the single purpose of survival. A sort of Darwinistic approach to thinking.

Extreme Low Context Surface Structure Thinkers™  lump all sensory experience besides intellect as useless and totally discount all emotions as erroneous. They quickly and easily point out all the errors one can fall into when people rely on their emotional reactions.

And this is true.

What they don’t acknowledge is that “Logical Reasoning” and “Logical Reasoning” alone causes just as many errors, if not more, than emotional reactions.

The first being that there is such a thing as “pure reason”.

The second being that “truth” is attainable through a judicious manipulation of words.

The third is that Emotions and Sensory Experience should be discounted.

What the hell does this have to do with hammers?

Because where I am going to go with the concept of hammers has no Logical equivalent. There may be someone somewhere so skilled at Logical Manipulation to arrive at it, but I cannot conceive how they would, or even why they would.

It is not what logic is designed to do.

Logic takes itself seriously.

Logic is never playful.

The closest I have ever seen to logic being playful is the nine legged cat. And its purpose was to prove that you have to follow logical principles or you would make ridiculous mistakes.

A cat has four more legs than no cat.

No cat has five legs.

Therefore a cat has nine legs.

Extreme High Context Deep Structure Thinkers™ see reasoning as a survival tool that works best when treated as a mental playground.

The next blog will take the simple household hammer to this mental playground.

© 2014, all rights reserved.

How to Align the World by Drawing A Line In the World

10 Nov

In order to get a good handle on Aristotle’s Logic, and on Map Thinking™ as well, we need to turn to something often thought of as frivolous, or inexact, by “serious” thinkers.

 

ART.

 

If you are going to convey a piece of reality in a work of art you need to provide your perceiver with certain factors. These factors represent what the perceiver would encounter were they to have the “Real Thing” in front of them rather than the artistic representation.

 

The first thing to be considered in a work of art, especially if you are going to plan on doing one, is line. Where to place it and how “hard” to place it. Some forms of art, such as comic strips, are entirely composed of hard lines. At the other extreme you have Monet tossing dabs of paint on a canvas: You cannot distinguish a a line anywhere when looking at it up close. When you back off far enough your eye will supply the lines you need to distinguish what you are looking at.

 

In reality there are no lines.

 

Your mind supplies them all.

 

Just as happens when looking at the “Real Thing”.

 

Monet makes use of this mental trick in order to paint closer to the way reality is.

 

This may be harping, but “Our mind does not see reality the way it is”. Our mind sees reality in ways that enable the mind to process the information it receives more efficiently.

 

A Map Thinker ™ is always aware of this. When a Map Thinker™ uses Logic they are aware they are using a simplistic form of reasoning that is useful.

 

“Pure Thought” in the traditional Aristotelean Logical sense is Simplistic thought.

 

Does not mean Traditional Aristotelean Logic is not useful.

 

Logic is so useful that it does not matter what I say there will always be people who will believe Map Thinking™ is stupid and that Traditional Aristotlean Logic is a higher form or reasoning.

 

What Traditional Aristotelean Logic does is describe reality in simplistic, bite sized pieces.

 

Higher forms of reasoning.

 

People think Mathematics is a higher form or reasoning.

 

When I was in school the teachers taught that Einstein used “Higher Mathematics” to arrive at The General Theory of Relativity.

 

Wrong.

 

Einstein came up with his genius ideas, all of them, while day dreaming. He used mathematics to describe what he saw while day dreaming and predict what would prove his fantasies to be truth rather than fiction. The fact is that Imagination, as proven by Einstein and others, is The Highest Form of Reasoning.

 

Imagination allows us to boldly draw lines where they have never been drawn before.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

Why Would YOU Think Like Aristotle?

26 Oct

So why would anyone, you, I, or the person down the street, the big shot in the office, the bag person pushing a shopping cart  — Why would they, or anyone else, think like, or want to think like Aristotle?

The reason is simple: Because we are human.

Aristotle no doubt believed he came up with a higher form of reasoning. His followers, even to this day, tend to believe that Aristotlean Logic is a higher form of reasoning, largely due to the complex nature of its exceptions.  Fallacies, they are called.

So what is a Fallacy?

Its simplest definition is an error in reasoning: On the surface the argument looks as though it is reasonable and logical, but when compared to empirical data the answer simply does not fit.

The easiest fallacy to uncover results from not closely defining the terms being used. Often these are accidental. If you don’t realize that bacteria, viruses, fungi, yeast, and protozoa, are all called germs: If you don’t realize that some of these are good for you, then you are prone to making fallacies about them yourself or to accepting fallacies about them from others.

This is where questions come in. Even when you know that germs are a category, not things themselves, and even when you know that some are good for you and some are bad for you and some are indifferent — it does not hurt to ask yourself, or the person you are talking too, “Exactly what do we mean by that?”

Why Logic is so difficult to master is because there are so many potential fallacies that have been identified. The lowest number of known fallacies I have ever heard is ninety-nine.  The largest number is over a thousand.

In order to be a logician you need to not only recognize a fallacy, you need to be able to implement it; that is find it and correct it.

The reason why there are so many exceptions in Logic; the reason why there are so many fallacies is not because Logic is complex, but because it is simplistic. It way over simplifies so that our minds, which are incapable of handling the full extent of reality, can deal with, manipulate, and understand reality.

Once we understand that Logic is simplified reasoning, one that is not in any way connected too, or representative of reality, then we can use it to good effect. We take a tiny piece of our insanely complex universe, make it bite size so our brain can deal with it, and then discuss it as though it were real. We can refine our definition to the point where it can be understood and manipulated. We can discuss specific bacteria strains, or domestic cats, without constantly worrying that this small segment of reality is not representative of all reality, even though we are aware of the fact.

Once that is done we can use Logic.

Basically Logic is a system of drawing lines around the various parts of the universe and declaring “This is This and That is That”.

It is important to realize that neither This nor That really exist in and of themselves.

A dog is NOT a dog. There is a self animated fur-bearing thing out there in reality that we call a dog. Dogs share DNA with cats and humans. When we talk about dogs we often do not even realize we are discussing domestic dogs and much of what we say does not apply to their wild cousins. So we can discuss German Shepherds or Border Collies as opposed to Tea Cup Poodles or Chihuahuas.

I am aware I am beating a point in the head here, but it needs to be absorbed.

When we are using Logic we are not talking about “Things” we are talking about our definitions of “Things”. The things themselves do not exist independently or out of context with any of the other things the universe is composed of. The fact things can be treated as though they are separate entities allows humans the ability “Think” about them: To manipulate ideas about them: To, as far as humanly possible, understand them.

We never really know, no can we ever know, exactly what we are talking about. But we can arrange our definitions is such a way that we can discuss them as though we did know.

The problems of reasoning happen when we forget that Logic, Things, or Events, and our understanding of them, are all artificial constructs that allow us as humans to function within a universe we cannot fully comprehend.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

The Law of the Included Middle

11 Aug

Aristotle is NOT an idiot!

The Law of the Excluded Middle impeded science for hundreds of years and still impedes science.

Even those studies that are not normally thought of as science.

Such as economics.

As I pointed out in the law of contradiction, although not directly, everything is connected. All anything is is a different batch of a set of common ingredients to produce a recipe of creation.

Most of the interesting things happen in the middle.

First lets look at Aristotle:

Either (A or Not A)

A thing either exists or does not exist.

Every statement is ether true or false.

Logically this may be true.

Mapologically nothing exists quite as it is perceived and nothing exists until it is perceived. Until then it is simply potential.

Thus Neither (A nor Not A)

Truth is transitory and even that is worthless unless it has use. To be useful it must be grounded.

Example:

The Big Dipper is a constellation in the sky.

This is true.

But to be of any value two things must happen.

The person must know that the Big Dipper indicates north.

The Big Dipper must be visible.

Both conditions above must exist when you need them.

Perhaps when you are lost.

One of the difficulties many people have with my system of thought is that a lie can be seen as more useful, and therefore more desirable, than the truth.

Example:

A desperate killer is headed toward a theater. If he gets there and people are present he would have hostages. If you walk out on stage and explain the situation, answer questions, etc. He will be there.

On the other hand telling everyone there is a fire and to get away might be a superior alternative.

Lets take a look at the middle.

Let me give you a quick lesson in economics. It is applicable in many, perhaps most, situations. If you are making decisions it works. If you are trying to get your kids, or your employees to do a good job, it works. If you are trying to understand political issues it works.

Picture a teeter totter.

Got that?

Somewhere in the middle is the balance point where rewards and punishments exactly balance. If it is taking out the garbage there is a specific point where the bother of taking it out exactly balances the reward of having somewhere to put the garbage.

Okay, so your teenager is the one who is assigned the bother of taking out the kitchen garbage.

But the teenager never suffers the inconvenience of not having anyplace to put the potato peelings while cooking dinner. It is quite possible the teenager cannot even fathom the necessity of taking out the kitchen garbage.

This becomes a useful map of the family dynamics.

The solution is to either make the chores more pertinent to what the teenager is doing, or alter what the teenager is doing to make the chores more pertinent.

Perhaps the teenager should be the one peeling the potatoes.

Most people think economics has to do with the stock market.

Economics is simple. It is the science of the carrot and the stick. When the reward for doing something is worth the time and resources required to do it you have equilibrium. The reward may not be money. It might be self-respect. The resources might not be time or money. It could be self respect. When the teeter totter tips one way or the other then more people will either respond by avoiding the cost or by obtaining the reward. The further the tip the more people will respond to it.

Economics resides in the middle.

Without the included middle economics cannot be explored in any way, manner, shape, or form.

This is true of science and knowledge in general.

Aristotelean logic leads to dead ends, prison cells of the mind, and locks the thinker in them in the name of truth. Once there creativity stops, exploration stops, and real thinking stops.

Once a person who has found the one real truth they become a “believer” in that truth. There is no reason to look further. In fact looking further can seem blasphemous — Even though religion is not involved.

Aristotle is a case in point. A lot of philosophers have disagreed with Aristotle. Yet when I was in school the teachers idolized Aristotle. When I said I preferred Socrates I felt as though I were dealing with Sunday School talking God rather than a Parochial School talking philosophy. The difference being that Aristotle was the Holy One and Socrates the Questioner was a Satanic force.

When I said “Socrates died for my Questions” I was told that I was too young to discuss philosophy. There would be plenty of time for that when I went to college.

Like that was ever going to happen.

But wait a minute. Lets take a closer look at Aristotle himself.

When Aristotle wrote about the Virtues what did he espouse?

Balance and Moderation.

In other words when Aristotle tackled a real subject he did what any sensible person would do: He went right to the middle: He did not exclude it.

I wish I had known this when I was still in school. It would have changed my disagreements with teachers considerably. The outcome I do not know. But I am curious. After I left school I was able to find in libraries and read things about Aristotle that was not available in school.

All I found as a child was the Three Laws of Thought and the Syllogism.

At the time I had serious problems with them but had no argument against them except Socrates. The teachers were no help because their interests lay in “either – or” thinking by the students. Either you are a good student or a bad student. I was a bad student, therefore I needed to shape up or be punished.

I rejected the concept that I was a “bad” student.

Which meant they had to be bad teachers.

Nowadays, as a Map Thinker™ I would realize, at least intellectually, that the scholastic situation is such that it promotes conformity over education.

Somewhere after the sixth grade I wrote my first treatise on Philosophy. It was called Quizology and I wish I still had a copy. It was a study of questions. Most, if not all, of Quizology is embodied in Map Thinking™. I did not take care of it because I accepted the premise one of my teachers gave me, “No one will ever care what an ignorant Halfbreed has to say.”

The sad conclusion is that most people who claim to be logical use the most simplistic “Either – Or” tools available to them and ignore, or are unable to comprehend, the complexity of truly logical thought.

Oddly there is a definite parallel here with a certain type of Biblically ignorant person who claims to be a Christian but has no concept of what Christ said or did according to the new testament.

There is a rule here, I believe. Any belief system will attract a significant number of people who use the most simplified version of it and ignore the intricacies.

So far I have not tackled one thing; How does one find the middle?

That, it turns out is the easy part. You use Aristotle’s laws of thought. The simplest either / or mentality.

Without realizing what she was doing, my mother taught me Map Thinking™ when I was a small child. When someone would ask me, “Are you a good boy?” The pressure on the child is to say, “Yes.” Because either you are a good boy or you are a bad boy.

Most parents either let the child answer and beam with pride as the poor child is programmed, not so much to “goodness” — but programmed into this simplistic model of Aristotelean logic. Either / or. If the child hesitates the parent will often answer for them, “He is a very good boy (girl)”. Never thinking they are modeling not just the child’s behavior, which it probably doesn’t, but they are modeling the child’s methodology of thinking.

Not my mother.

“Tell him you are just a little boy, honey.” Which I would dutifully repeat.

What did I take away?

Somehow in my psyche was ingrained. I wasn’t good. I wasn’t bad. There is no either / or. I was just another little boy doing little boy things in little boy ways.

I still remember the odd looks on the faces of the adults who could not understand what had happened to a simple, culturally acceptable question that was normally asked of little children.

Scientists have studied some of the ways we humans reach false conclusions. Pretty much they have reached the conclusion our minds are wired in ways that produce certain fallacies of thought. What the scientists studying this phenomena don’t seem to have taken into consideration is that children are culturally and scholastically indoctrinated in these ways of thought.

And it doesn’t have to be that way.

So let us look at the Law of the Excluded Middle from a Map Thinker’s™ Point of View.

Either (A or not A)

Becomes:

A+ <- An ->A

Where A+ is one extreme. 

Where A- is the other extreme.

and An is all possible degrees in between.

 

© 2013, All Rights Reserved

The law of Non-Contradiction.

27 Jul

The law of Non-Contradiction.

 

Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement is both true and false.

 

Let us start with the easy one.

 

To a Map Thinker™ truth is virtually nonexistent. Those truths that do exist are ephemeral. This state of being existed at this specific time at this specific place. The most enduring truths are relationships and they are complete abstractions.

For example Pi.

Unfortunately the exact truth of Pi can never be known to the final digit and if it were it would be useless knowledge.

 

As Steven Hawking points out: In mathematics it is often the case where two different, even opposite, models can explain the same phenomena. Which one you use is a matter of choice or convenience. One of his sentences I love is that all P-branes are created equal.

Truth is not an issue.

Usefulness is.

To a Map Thinker the simplest solution that yields a useful result is the best solution.

 

Now on to: Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

 

Aristotle expressed this as A(A and not A).

 

Lets examine this a bit. In poor Aristotle’s defense, ( I do pick on him a LOT) he had no way of guessing our formula for A: An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn . Science of the time, while more advanced than many people believe, was not what it is today.

What he was looking at as A was Q = I.

In simple words he saw the forest and thought it was the thing itself. He did not see the trees that made it up. Sort of the opposite of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

In complexer terms he saw the qualities expressed by(RsiRpi )n and thought this I(dentity) was in fact the thing itself.

 

And yes, I do know “proper grammar” does not include “complexer”. Someday I will write a “Map Thinker’s Guide to Creative Grammar™” Just because I can.

 

R -> Q = I <- P

 

R = Ripn

 

 

Lets take a closer look at R.

 

R = (RsiRpi )n means that A (Tree for example) is both the sum of its parts and the proportion of those parts. Thus to reiterate what was said before: It is possible to hold a rock in one hand and a glass of sea water in the other that both contain exactly the same ingredients. The only difference being the proportions of those ingredients.

 

But just like a stew can contain salt or not contain salt, or contain oregano or not contain oregano and still be identifiable as stew, so can sea water and a rock can contain or not contain different ingredients and still be identifiable as both a rock and sea water.

 

Tiny differences in the DNA of trees tells a scientist which tree was involved in the crime.

 

Some scientists tell us an interesting possibility about emus.

 

It seems that birds and reptiles are virtually the same creatures. Every feathered friend that exists is a potential scaly monster from bygone eras — If you knew how to flip the right switch.

Therefore an Emu is a potential tiny dinosaur of the same size and shape.

 

Is that true?

It remains to be proven.

 

Gene splicing, cloning, DNA fiddling… this could get confusing.

 

So the law of non-contradiction that Aristotle was so fond of is in reality a pleasant fiction that bears no relationship to the world of reality — Only the world of appearance.

 

Once we replace A = A with  we are forced to replace  NOT (A and not A) with A = An and Rn where An equals slight variations in A (possibly over time) Rn. When Rip as perceived by Aristotle had a large enough difference he saw A as something entirely different.

Let us say A = grass.

If grass is given the right nutrients it will provide your lawn with a richer, more bountiful color to show off your skill and your house.

Thus A = An.

Very slight variations in the same grass over time and environment (a hefty word meaning place / space).

Your neighbor has a different breed of grass.

A = Aªn.

Where A is A but shows a wide variation. Enough to be a separate variety.

A = (RsiRpi )

Where A = any potential state of A both known and unknown.

An example of this could be instead of feeding the lawn a diet that produces a more robust color the homeowner instead forgets to water the grass and it becomes dry and brown and eventually dies off.

Or it could be the neighbor’s cow eats it and it changes state completely.

 

Aristotle never considered time, space, or process in any of his laws. With modern knowledge of how the world works we cannot ignore them. Any change, even the slightest, in time, space, or process, will have an effect on A no matter what A is.

 

A is only A at a specific place, during a specific time, while no process is happening.

Thus A is ONLY A while you are pointing at it.

As soon as you have turned your back on it it has changed.

 

The grass, A, is changing at some microscopic level even as you point at it.

Thus An -> I <-P.

 

I will name the Perceiver George.

This comes from an enjoyable Fantasy novel titled “The Dragon and the George”  by Gordon R. Dickson.

It is a reply to The Ultimate Prisoner Riddle. ( I will get into the Ultimate Prisoner Riddle and its social aspects another time.) The oldest of these I know of is Sinbad. But Sinbad the Sailor and Sinbad the wealthy and Sinbad the Pauper are all the same. And this is very transparent.

Jim Eckert on the other hand enters a world of magic as the Dragon Gorbash. And is forced into another Point of View entirely.

George is a suitable name for our Perceiver.

We, as does George, must face constant change in our Point of View.

 

An -> I <-P.

Where there is a slight difference, even a profoundly noticeable difference such as color change or growing too tall, George is able to maintain continuity. He can say, “My grass sure looks better after I added that new ingredient to it. But it is growing faster so I got to cut it this weekend.”

 

 

Thus George can think about, and talk about, the grass in front of his house that he calls a lawn as though it existed in Aristotle’s simplistic universe.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Remember a basic principle of Map Thinking:

Always use the simplest map that serves the purpose.

 

Just because George knows, or should know, that at some level A -> I <- P does not mean that he has to use it every time he draws a breath.

 

Here is another basic principle of Map Thinking.

 

The human mind, in order to function, simplifies everything. There is no way the human mind can encompass all the complexities of the universe. Even if it could it would have to focus on one aspect at a time in order to function as a human being.

 

In art you are taught the basic shapes. Circle, square, rectangles, triangles, ovals, — None of these shapes exist in nature.

They are mental simplifications the mind uses to deal with all the complex information presented by a confusing universe.

Does not matter.

If you learn to draw, and learn to see, basic shapes, you will always be able to produce a picture.

No tree or bush that ever existed was ever exactly ball-shaped or exactly triangular-shaped — But the mind will process them as such. Even houses built by humans do not form exact squares and rectangles, but the mind sees them as such.

 

Thus the law of non-contradiction must be replaced with,

A ≠ -> I <- P

A does not equal the Identity it projects to the Perceiver.

 

A is both A and Not A.

 

At one and the same time.

 

You should notice that nowhere in here have I directly discussed particle physics or quantum physics / mechanics. Both are implied. It would be hard for me to discuss reason or science without some references. But everything I have discussed has been on the macro level.

Aristotle could have seen it.

Anyone since Aristotle could have seen it.

Some did.

Those who did were quickly drowned out by those who worshipped Aristotle as the Thinker of all Thinkers. Just last week I met a man whose basic attitude is, “Aristotle said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

 

Had Aristotle not been so simplistic, or had his adherents not been so fanatical, Quantum Physics would not be such a shock to the average person. Because the activity at the Macro level is NOT that different from that at the Micro level — If you take the time to look.

 

 

 

(C) 2013, All Rights Reserved

 

The Sixth Law of Identity

14 Jul

Now we have a tiny little itsy bitsy teeny-weeny problem in the <- . 

Ready?

There are two senses we know for a fact do not act the way we think the senses work.

One is what we see. 

The other is what we smell.

I suspect those two rascals the ears as well, but that is unproven.

The oldest cones in our retinas sense the color blue. 

But do those cones report this color blue to the optic nerve? Does it travel to the part of our brain that says what we are looking at is blue?

No.

They report to other glands and organs that relate to our ability to adjust to time. In other words our sleep cycle. 

Our noses sense smells called pheromones. But this information is not passed on to the olfactory system. It is sent somewhere else and causes reactions that could be called romance or lust. 

Ooops.

So we have to live with the conclusion that we do not know for sure what we are sensing and we do not know for sure how we are sensing it. Nor can we ever be sure what our bodies are doing with that information. 

This puts a whole new spin on A <- P.

We do not know for sure what A is.

We do not know for sure how well we perceive A.

We do not know for sure how we perceive A.

To make it worse when synaesthesia kicks in. That is when someone smells yellow, hears blue, sees the sound birds make, or hears someone touching them. 

All answers are provisional. 

Only questions have meaning.

If we can find the right questions.

It order to account for these types of phenomena we must add in the uncertainty of what might be being perceived.

I <-^- P

Hmmm. We have another problem. This one is with ->.

A = Rip/T -> I

I do not want to dig too far into Complexity Theory, Breaking Points, and Emergent Phenomena, but let us simply say the recipe sometimes produces unexpected results. Without trying to account for it we still need to include it. 

A = Rip/T -^-> I

So now we have: 

A -^-> I <-^- P

So lets take a look at one of the unexpected things in A -^-> I.

Most people are aware of Herd Mentality and are disparaging of it. That is where a group of livestock will follow the leader anywhere without question. Sort of the way people follow Rock Stars, Politicians, Preachers, and Talk Show Personalities. It enables unscrupulous slaughter-house owners to train Judas Goats to lead the herd through the slaughter-house.

What most people are unaware of is Herd Intelligence. This is where the intelligence of the individuals in the herd is low but the effective intelligence of the group is high. This is most obvious in ants that appear to have no intelligence as individuals but have been known to perform amazing feats of engineering in large groups.

If you recall P(EE) where EE is Experience and Expectations. If we add cultural bias and other factors that influence perception into the ^ of <-^- P we can pretty much cover the entire gamut. Other people from other disciplines can add whatever unexpected influence might occur here.

In short: 

Even if a human ever did come across an A = A situation there is little chance that human being would ever be able to experience it.

Yet, of course it appears that we do.

A baseball bat is a baseball bat and whether it is made out of wood, aluminum, or plastic, it is still a baseball bat.

And we all know it.

We are able to function not because A = A but because we can act as though A = A. 

The ^.  I call it the Bump, as in “The Bump in the road”. 

Normal humans only have three cones. Red, blue, and green. Butterflies can see ultraviolet light. Mantis Shrimp — The number of colors they can see is just plain scary. 

Two things that look exactly alike to a human might look like two entirely different things to a Mantis Shrimp. 

Thus our own senses, such as eyesight, limit out ability to comprehend reality, to reason through reality, and to be creative with reality, if we actually believe and treat reality as if A = A.

Or when:

A <- P -> B

When A as Perceived and Processed by P become Absolute Belief then we have an individual or group who are locked into mental prisons of their own making and will be unable to cope with any emergent reality their belief system does not encompass.

When A <- P -> U 

That is when A as Perceived and Processed by P produces a deliberately useful Future (Where future can be the time it takes to respond at the speed of light) Action or Reaction. Please note that an Action or Reaction can range from discounting the tree as not being relevant to the current situation, or a simple admiration of its habit (Habit means “Shape” to non horticulture types), or snapping its picture. It does not have to be a physical action or interaction with the tree. 

Thus P is aware, at some level, that other Actions and / or Reactions are available but are not included because they are not useful at the time. 

Thus if we expand the new formula derived from A = A out to its maximum we would have: 

A = DRip/Tn -^->DQ/Tn  = I (EE)/Tn <-^- P/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/Tt

It is doubtful to me anyone would have any use for such a cumbersome formula aside from explanation of its parts and how they fit together. 

The simplest accurate formula we can use is: A <-^-> P = ? where A and P interact with each other in ways that produce results that have statistical probability but are not individually predictable. Yet managing, in most cases, to produce the illusion that A = A.

It is almost scary to me that I could do that to Aristotle’s poor little A = A. 

But to me it is just, well, obvious.

(C) 2013 All Rights Reserved

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

via GiantGag.com

Killing time just got a lot funnier !

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma

War By Other Means

Politics & Philosophy

The Neighborhood

society online's social conscious

stillness of heart

MUSINGS : CRITICISM : HISTORY : PASSION

The Guilty Preacher Man

abandoned illustrations

matchtall

A tall women amazon model WordPress.com sit

Gotta Find a Home

Conversations with Street People

Three Wise Guys

Best not to think about it

Mister G Kids

A daily comic about real stuff little kids say in school. By Matt Gajdoš

Ray Ferrer - Emotion on Canvas

** OFFICIAL Site of Artist Ray Ferrer **

The Judy-Jodie and Kelli Memorial Blog

A great WordPress.com site

A Financial Life Coach

Your Financial Life Coach

Storyshucker

A blog full of humorous and poignant observations.

Dysfunctional Literacy

Just because you CAN read Moby Dick doesn't mean you should.

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More