What Exists? No, Really.

[Symbology]

Thanks Belovelife for bringing up that subject. I think one of the main barriers to high speed brain dumps that Pyrotex is alluding to would be this:

A key part of learning something is where the instructor asks the student a question, or spar's with the student. IE the student is interacting with the environment. If instead the teacher only made a statement, the lesson wouldn't "stick" nearly as well. By getting the student to come up with "their own" answer it forms the correct set of connections in the brain structure.

One day the student asked the Master how he was able to remain calm when others disrespected him.

The Master asked: "If I offer you a gift and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?"

To which the student replied: "I suppose if I refuse to accept it, it still belongs to you."

The Master continued: "My second questions is: If I refuse to accept your abuse, to whom does it still belong?"

Note that the lesson and quote do not end with the actual answer. The answer is left for the student (and the reader) to form in their own mind/map.

Another key aspect is that the teacher has to introduce a base vocabulary of concepts to the student before the student can even grasp the next layer of instructions. If an advanced subject on genetics or gourmet cooking is presented prior to the student understanding what "fold" means then the student only hears something approximating the teachers voice on Charlie Brown - "wah wahh wah wahhh wah wah wah wah"

To my observation this layer of vocabulary needs to be tested to let it cure and harden before going on. Hence the need for testing. You may have experienced a day or a conversation where too many concepts were presented and your brain reached overload. But I think that was also being directly addressed in The Matrix when they were being impressed with what Neo could absorb in a single session:
"He's a machine"


Sometimes this process is done with a highly traditional and intense "Induction" or "Initiation" process to see if the student "is up for it" or "has what it takes" to be a member at the next level. In college this is sometimes know as "the weeder course".

It seems that it is most effectively done when the physical body is put under stress from sleep/food/water deprivation, extreme temperature, and/or hallucinogenics. Classic examples are Special Forces "hell week", Monks inductions, Fraternity hazing, Indian sweat lodges, and the Masons. Some take as little as 12 hours, or as much as 12 months.

And they each then have their own unique set of stories and metaphors that are ingrained as part of the process.

I think the process makes the mind especially pliable and willing to accept nonsensical things without question and brands the knowledge into the mind (and sometimes the body). It gets the inductees mind "over the hump". The resulting arcane knowledge often evokes a sense of pride and unity among the members that share this knowledge. And also serves as a subtle or even secret form of communication that can be woven into everyday speech and used in broad daylight to identify other members. The disarrangement of that knowledge can be used to identify frauds.

Complexity is just the disarrangement of Simplicity.
- George Abell

Once that is in place, then in locations where average minds view a barrier, the inducted mind sees easy access and solution, and an entire new section of the map is open for them. In addition I think this training then can let the inducted mind take "great leaps" across the map - leaving others lost and confused as to where they went.

Magicians and Illusionists have a huge spectrum of these things in their map of the world.


From what I understand of brain biochemistry, there is a chemical backwash that happens when we sleep which cements the adjustments we have made during the day and resets everything for fresh learning when we awake. I believe that a key part of the reason why we dream is to both help verify what we have learned against a metaphorical comparison of everything else we know, as well as a joining in of the new knowledge with everything else we know.

The Cyc project had that step as a key part of its learning process. The instructors fed it new knowledge every day, and overnight a batch process compared that new knowledge against all other knowledge and presented a list of new conclusions as well as identified contradictions the next morning to have those concepts readjusted by the instructors.

"You can't do that"
"Just watch me officer!"

One man's magic is another man's engineering
- Robert A. Heinlein
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh
- Robert A. Heinlein
One man's inconsistency is another man's power
- Pam Kemper
One man with courage makes a majority
- Andrew Jackson

[Symbology]

Other examples of differing maps:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

Any sufficiently low technology is indistinguishable from corporate policy.
- unknown brilliant person

Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
- unknown

It is an accomplishment to make something foolproof
because fools are so ingenious
- N. Kohn

[Pyrotex]

My absence is not an indicator of lack of interest.

I have been thinking about this topic every day. Deep thinking. Visual imagery thinking.

I believe I may be on to something. Mapping functions... complex plane... semantic structures... hierarchies... holographic storage... smoked Jarlsburg cheese... interupt functions... dynamic loop memory... algorithmic introspection... recursion... temporal gradients...

I'll be back.

[Symbology]

Smoking Jarlsburg Cheese? What?!?

You know that stuff takes a minimum of a year to age! We could be here a while!!

[Symbology]

On a serious note - your "algorithmic introspection" reminded me of a key point of a pet project I was working on. It was when it recognized it had "play time" or "dream time" to fabricate new rules based on other knowledge it had. Basically what genes do when they mix and match cassettes in the chromisome. In fact now that I think about it - that is what they do in genetic programming.

But anyway, the key is that they system needs to be able to recognize when nothing else it has tried has succeeded sufficiently, and now it is time to "get creative". Then it builds a new blank IF and THEN structure and fills them in based on the metaphors of other successful rules (but possibly based on other concretes).

For example:
If you need to share [an apple] with [a friend], take [a knife] and cut it into equal segments, primarily for [sanitary] reasons (vs just [biting out your share])

Can map to:

If you need to share [the work load] with [a coworker], take [a project plan] and cut it into equal segments, primarily for [team morale] reason (vs just [picking it out yourself])

Or from the example above:
If I [offer] you [a gift] and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?

If I [deliver] you [an insult] and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?


The trick to being able to do that, is to have seen enough cases of the pattern, that the system can identify the consistent parts of the template, and turn the variable components into ... well... variables.

Of course to do that in the real world, the first challenge is the ability to identify where an "event" starts, and where it ends. In some real world cases I have done in the past, it took 15 rules to identify the possible start and end of a given event.

I'm betting there is a metaphor in gene sequencing relative to the start and end of a gene.

[Symbology]

Also if you are going to do any more simulations, I just today learned about a modeling package from an Economics professor up here at Michigan State (Going to a UU Church has its advantages ) called Stella. (Sorry if this is already common knowledge for some).

Here is an example of a similar process to your Kelp/Fish/Sharks simulation system.


Here is an example of the math behind the model.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Symbology

On a serious note - your "algorithmic introspection" reminded me of a key point of a pet project I was working. ...fabricate new rules based on other knowledge...
The trick to being able to do that, is to have seen enough cases of the pattern, that the system can identify the consistent parts of the template, and turn the variable components into...
I'm betting there is a metaphor in gene sequencing relative to the start and end of a gene.

Good.
Triggers ideas over here.
Be careful though, we're discussing processes in the Mind, not gene sequencing. Though it is almost certain the Mind uses "genetic algorithms" or "genetic programming", which I take care to warn all readers, has NOTHING to do with our DNA and GENES.

What you made me think of is climbing the Ladder of Abstraction. One needs a new Rule for dealing with an "unsolvable" problem.
One begins with an old rule that works.
One identifies the "objects" in the rule.
One identifies the "classes" that the "objects" belong to. (Going up one level of abstraction)
One selects an alternate "object" that has some direct or metaphorical relationship with the Problem. If this fails, then one selects an alternate "class#2" that is closely related to "class#1" and selects an object from it.
One replaces an old "object" in the old Rule with the new "object".
One executes the New Rule and see what happens.
If the New Rule solves the Problem, then you get to brag how smart you are.

Note: Can you see that this all occurs with Semantic Structures?
Humans can do this because WE build flexible linkages between Mapped Objects in our "Map" -- and the Semantic Objects our Mind constructs in our Semantic Representation of our "Map.

[Symbology]

The point on the start and end of an event, is that we live in a continuous stream of sound and visual experience. Figuring out WHEN breakfast begins and where it ends is based on visual and audial queues.

Generally silence is one of the best indicators that one event is ending and a new event is beginning. "The Quiet Before The Storm" for example. The downbeat of the baton given by the conductor. The low growl of predator before it strikes.

I would also contend that if the correct thing can be measured, that generally an event beginning or ending is where it's first derivative has gone to zero. ie it is either at the top or bottom of a hill.

Another good way is to take a video and subtract the last frame from the current frame. As long as nothing is happening then the difference is all gray. If something moves then it creates a color difference against the gray areas that are still identical to the former video frame.

Living animals are masters at identifying the difference between things. That is what "draws" our attention. [I love the wisdom of our ancestors who figured out proper colloquialisms for things. We just take them for granted.]

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

I was not sure if I should reply to this thread or not, because it has proven to be such a hard issue to communicate clearly enough. It's far too easy to misinterpret what is being said, and I see a lot of "groping among mere concepts" already... Decided to give it a go anyway, especially as this is critically related to what Doctordick is talking about. I think if you can wrap your head around what Korzybski was really saying, you can understand what DD is doing....

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread and read your post again, AnssiH. But so far, you appear to have the best understanding of Korzybski's theory of the "semantic mind". Your post is a damned fine piece of exposition!
Rat own! Rat own! Great job!

And Symbology -- excellent contributions! Much food for thought.
You are hereby declared, "Master of Metaphors".

It's getting to where I have to read the whole thread from the beginning before I can see where my next post should be directed. I feel I'm at a threshold.

Threshold...

Metaphor Alert!

[lawcat]

Pyrotex,
You provided better explanation of Korzybski than he himself.