What Exists? No, Really.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Rade

...Self-organized criticality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...is not in any way "unique in the universe"--in fact, it is a property of many, many dynamic systems...
Per Bak: How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organised Criticality

I would also argue that Korzybski idea of 'Mind/Map entity', as where "inside and outside no longer exist" has direct application to quantum theory. Here is my outline. The Brain state where Mind and Map form the Korzybski dialectic (that is where inside and outside merge) is what is called the Critical Point in physics which results in an Attractor leading to Self Organized Criticality, and this process is explained mathematically by quantum Conformal Field Theory. All the terms in bold can be found at Wikipedia.

So, as I see it, I agree with Korzybski's philosophy if one takes it to mean that, first, both Mind and Map exist within the Brain, but there is a Critical Point within the Brain where the two form an Attractor physical existence (a philosophic dialectic), and this superposition leads to an emergent property of Self-Organized Criticality within the Brain that the Philosopher Korzybski could only call the the "I" in the 1930's, but which today can be explained via quantum mechanics using Conformal Field Theory....?

Whoa!

Okay, I have read the links, and I think you are on to something! I just don't know exactly what it is yet. I like the "Korzybski Dialectic" (KD) -- it sets up exactly the mental imagery that I was trying for.

It seems to me as I write this, that our thoughts on "Reality" are compatible. The KD sets out to describe how the Mind relates to Reality, without knowing how it came to be, or what precisely the "Lego Bricks" (LB) are and how they operate.

YOU appear to be describing, with attractors and CF Theory, and fractally orchestrated SOC systems, the "how" and the "what" and the "why" of the KD.

My take on all of this is that the Territory is simply itself. It evolves because it comprises MANY instances and levels of SOC. We can ignore this for the moment, accepting that it just does its thing "out there".

LIFE developed sensors to improve its odds of survival. These sensor/reaction systems probably started as unrelated clumps of cells -- each clump was sensitive to one thing (heat?) and could trigger one reaction (jump?).

But then LIFE evolved the "general purpose nerve cell" (GPNC). A GPNC could be hooked up to ANY sensor and deliver a signal to ANY set of muscles (or other reaction cells). GPNC's could be strung together so that a light sensor at the tail, could trigger legs at the front.

Of course, it was more energy efficient to grow as many of these GPNC's together in one place so that simple logic could take place: if the light sensor at the tail AND the wetness sensor in the gills, BUT NOT the mating sensor in the nose -- are ON, then trigger the legs to run.

Some sensors, such as eyes and ears, can produce a LOT of information. Did you know that you can "map" the entire Universe in a circle of radius 1 cm? Yup. It is called Conformal Mapping, and is very useful in advanced Calculus. For every point "out there", you can mathematically define exactly one point "inside" the circle. The further out the real point, the closer to the center of the circle will be the conformal point. The exact center of the circle cooresponds to all points at an infinite distance from the circle.

Eyes and Ears can perform Conformal Mapping of the environment (of any arbitrary size) to a clump of nerve cells (of any arbitrary size). By the time the proto-Lizards were exploring dry land, brains had evolved that produced an accurate Conformal Mapping of Territory onto Map. But only using sensory information.

By the time early proto-Hominids were developing, they were also Conformally Mapping the sounds that each other made, AND the internal sensations of hunger, fear, lust, anger, heat, pain, worry, discomfort, et al.

Then came the Saltatory Leap. The brain was always evolving to build better maps. Suddenly (in evolutionary terms) the brain evolved an icon in the Map that was NOT Conformally Mapped from the Territory. It was mapped from hoots and hollers in the herd/clan, but it wasn't "that sound came from there". It was "that sound means THIS!"

The first Semantic Structure. [Picture a dozen monkeys touching a huge black obelisk, with a really crazy choir in the background singing out of tune, really LOUD.]

Now, HOW this came about, may be described by your Conformal Field Theory, by Darwinian evolution, and/or by SOC theory -- or some combination.

But first, there were sensor/effectors.
Then, there was generalized nerve cells and brains.
Then, there was conformal mapping of the Territory into purely representational icons of the physics of that Territory.
Then, there was the creation of the first icon with semantic meaning.

THEN, there was the creation of the Uber-Map, the KD, the Mind, the map containing not just representational icons, but also icons of MEANING.

[Imagine the 2001 theme song, Thus Spake Zarathustra, played with full orchestra.]

I can't go on. You take it from here.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by arkain101

...In order for any meaning to occur of any event there must be a relative relationship
....a)How fast is the billiard ball moving (velocity)?
It is undeterminable, and the question has no meaning.
...The mind must have a map before it can have meaning. The mind can not exist on its own.
...However, I think it is possible that these two are intimitly connected, and almost inseperable. It may be that it is the mind that creates (the opportunity for) meaning for the territory and it is the territory that creates (the opportunity for) a map.
....

Arkain, hi there.
You made some good points.
So, in my previous post [above], I reflected this in giving the "map" TWO identities: its identity as merely a Conformal Mapping of external Reality. (that tree, those clumps of dirt, that moving shadow...)
The primitive Mind has this Proto-Map to work with. All icons in the Proto-Map are merely representational icons.
The Mind builds ever more complex icons to represent ever more complex "entities" out there in the Territory: Zebra. Mated pair of zebras. Mated pair of zebras that smell like me. Herd of zebras. My herd of zebras. Other herds of zebras. Other herds that are different from zebras. Etc.

At this point, the Mind is a Icon Generating Machine. (IGM)

At some point, in its drive to create new icons, the Mind creates an icon for a sound that other hominids make, and that THIS hominid makes, and the icon is not for the sound, but for the MEANING of the sound: "Alarm! Grab the babies and Run!"

At this point, the Mind begins construction of the Uber-Map (which is initially based entirely upon the Proto-Map) -- constructed of Semantic Structures, where all of the new entities in the Uber-Map are Meanings, not objects or groups of objects. And those Meanings are all associated with sounds that the hominids make. (At least, initially). And "I" can communicate a chosen Meaning to another hominid by making that associated sound.

Over time, the number of sounds increase. The complexity of their arrangements and organization increase exponentially. Enabling the creation of an Uber-Map of near infinite complexity and richness. Enabling the hominids to "live" in an Uber-Map containing not merely objects, but relationships, associations, memories, plans, and things like "justice" "love" "hate" "friendship" "loyalty".

Humans awoke to find themselves living in a "World" (the Map's reflection of the Territory) of Meaning, Communication, and Reasoning.

At this point, the Mind is a Meaning Generating Machine. (MGM)

Thanks for your post. It really made me think.

[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.

Well, seems to me you did one fantastic bangup job!!!

...The map-territory relationship refers to the fact that our comprehension of reality contains purely epistemological facets that cannot be considered part of ontological reality. The "map" constitutes a language by which we make sense of (sensory) data, whose ontological meaning is unknown.

Bingo!!

...So the difference between "the map" and "the territory" does not refer to something like "the location of a cliff"....intelligible form contains human definitions. That is why "the map is not the territory".

Bingo!!

So think of it this way, the territory is the undefined form of reality (it is the form you cannot "think of"), and the map is the set of defined entities and concepts that offers a way to predict that data in meaningful way.

Bingo!! Defining and predicting can be done by the Mind because it has a "representation" of external reality to play with. That "representation" is what Korzybski called "the Map".

...If you feel like saying "But I can feel the tennis ball in my hand, surely that is not just a human definition!", you just did not understand what Korzybski said, and you are still clinging on naive realistic view of reality...."a tennis ball in my hand" is a result of a map which contains a definition for a "tennis ball" and "my hand", and the expected interaction between the two. ...That is the issue General Semantics touches; everything is understood in semantical terms, i.e. self-coherent set of "truths"...

Bingo!!

Wow, Anssi, you did a better job at explaining Korzybski than I did. Have you ever read his 1930's set of lectures? Or "Science and Sanity"???

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Wow, Anssi, you did a better job at explaining Korzybski than I did. Have you ever read his 1930's set of lectures? Or "Science and Sanity"???

Well no, I haven't really read much philosophy. I had come to think of the same issue in the context of AI, and come to same conclusions, so by the time I heard about Korzybski's writings it was pretty easy to understand what it was about. Of course the same issue has been raised by other people with different words, Kant comes to mind, and I'd like to say Kuhn too (to an extent).

Yeah haven't really spent much time actually reading any of their full works either, I guess I just like to think things through myself more, and I suppose then I tend to levitate towards material that makes sense to me. After that, seems like Wikipedia explanations are enough to align myself to the same terminology if needed.

-Anssi

[Thunderbird]

Did you know that you can "map" the entire Universe in a circle of radius 1 cm? Yup. It is called Conformal Mapping, and is very useful in advanced Calculus. For every point "out there", you can mathematically define exactly one point "inside" the circle. The further out the real point, the closer to the center of the circle will be the conformal point. The exact center of the circle corresponds to all points at an infinite distance from the circle.

Fascinating !



Intuitively and intellectually it is hard for me to shake idea that this map of the “real” universe is at its very core organized around an attractor that is constantly moving toward an extremely stable point. This “movement” of time we see gravity and organized evolving systems that we perceive as a dynamic universe manifest as an interplay between a single point of stability at the exact center of our sphere and the instability of conscious biological life that surrounds it. “Organized Reality” is generated as a constant oscillation between theses contained points. The center point that has no movement simply because of its central location within the sphere and all the infinite possible points revolving and interacting around that single point. This is not a novel idea in physics until we place it in the sole context of all physical phenomenon existing as a self contained conscious reality.

Dynamical systems theory also deals with probability and can therefore allow us to synthesize thermodynamics and so-called "Chaos", (which is really a highly complex form of hierarchical, enfolded order that appears to be disorder). The really interesting area here though, is the entities at the transition zone between ordered, stable systems at equilibrium (maximum entropy) and "disordered" (but complex) and unstable Chaotic (minimum entropy) ones. According to the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, these far from equilibrium dissipative systems locally minimize their entropy production by being open to their environments --- they export it in fact, back into their environments, whilst importing low entropy. Globally, overall entropy increase is nevertheless preserved, with the important caveat that the dissipative system concerned often experiences a transient increase (or optimization) of its own complexity, or internal sophistication, before it eventually subsides back into the flux.
This is known as the region of alternatively, Emergence, Maximum Complexity, Self-organized Criticality, Autopoiesis, or the Edge of Chaos. (Nascent science debates nomenclature routinely - and appropriately, in this case, the crucial point being that they are all different terms for essentially the same phenomena.)
Life forms, ecosystems, global climate, plate tectonics, celestial mechanics, human economies, history and societies, even consciousness itself - all manifest this feedback-led, reflexive behavior; they maximize their adaptive capacities by entering this region of (maximum) complexity on the edge of Chaos, whenever they are pushed far from their equilibrium states, thereby incrementally increasing their internal complexity, between occasional catastrophes.
Remarkably, this transition zone is mathematically occupied by The Golden Mean. This ratio acts as an optimized probability operator, (a differential equation like an oscillating binary switch), whenever we observe the quasi-periodic evolution of a dynamical system. It appears in fact, to be the optimal, energy-minimizing route to the region of maximum algorithmic complexity, and to be a basin of attraction for the edge of Chaos. Universo: Dynamical Symmetries, by Nigel Reading

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Fascinating !
...it is hard for me to shake idea that this Map of the “real” universe is... organized around an attractor... that we perceive as a dynamic ...interplay between a ...point of stability at the ...center and the instability of ...biological life that surrounds it. “Organized Reality” is generated as an...oscillation between these ...points... existing as a self contained conscious reality.

Fascinating!2

I took the liberty of discarding words and phrases that were redundant [IMO], even merging sentences, and came up with the pithy statement above. I'm not sure this accurately reflects what YOU meant to say, but it seems to me that it does. But it really strikes a chord with me. Consciousness is not a static pattern, but a dynamic one, constantly interacting with the sensory floods, and (in your words) "oscillating between" two attractors. One attractor would be where the Map has conformally mapped the self: going from the limbs, the skin, the inner sensations, the feelings, the thoughts, the emotions, the sense of self, to the inner *I*.

At this conjunction of the Map, the Mind is interacting with the conformally mapped image of the Mind.


Consciousness?

Thanks for a great post.

[belovelife]

what do you think of the "mapping"
sequences described by the movie the matrix
do you think we could do that with tecnology that communicates in
"thought process" ?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by belovelife

what do you think of the "mapping"
sequences described by the movie the matrix
do you think we could do that with tecnology that communicates in
"thought process" ?

I dunno. I don't remember the mapping sequences you speak of, though I've seen the movie a dozen times. Say some more about this.

[belovelife]

you know the part where neo learns all the kungfu and stuff and the parts where trinity was like
"i need a pilot program for helicopter thingmaduzie"

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by belovelife

you know the part where neo learns all the kungfu and stuff...

Don't get your hopes up. The human brain has evolved to get its inputs through several equally evolved biological channels, like the optic nerves. The brain's ability to remember, and relate training to muscular reactions is also the product of megayears of evolution. In my opinion, you're not gonna come up with some electronic means of "instant training" that's gonna bypass all the wetware.
Sure would be nice, however.