From: (Thanasis Argiriou) Sender: (Yaneer Bar-Yam) To: complex-science Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241] verified) by necsi.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 22004170 for complex-science@necsi.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:31:45 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d31so342957and.92 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:31:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=3jMMK8HpubLYIspjHwDXPQXNk1uGIZFCxEF9wYDuCEk=; b=hfMhTaOAMPbwtNS/6ZkL8QNNLrFcETgIGp2ZHmoYaqrn6QLj50FoE2Th72YV3dUrz7 MnbQiDIPSsN/AQnrw5WYxfqidBpFizBkybvxOSNAPqx9TSOpiyEtsafFZzBgZRd6tv25 V8FcXpU0mibKJ7jm3+mAXkhCF7oEnAVSltG5U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=eMp3aCjTPaL8B2l1g8OmRIYQ26ipLinhZDvms9iAttXxGQxId2jbiyB8N1uj/+PbFR M9U3KrT+3PjK/rqD7i1kY1ySQmA1z0AKPPK2iwx6p5wNQnP1UzCzm4k36yjm/MhOKYcO RMQjSIaH/vjdETJYELa8t7rfLbDUWa6b6Pc0w= Received: by 10.100.253.5 with SMTP id a5mr5329806ani.5.1214901099852; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.151.20 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <79285ab50807010131o1f864f65geb7fce1fffe5cc73@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:31:39 +0300 X-Original-To: complex-science@necsi.org Subject: Re: will and conscious In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3116_12972512.1214901099827" References: ------=_Part_3116_12972512.1214901099827 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Maybe the snip part goes to history itself, another solipsistic queston, coudl we view a past thea is not our own? Meaning of the now? or to set it differently meaning of the know? Does the present interfere with the past? is there a past? When was time invented? In The sums manner small sums are involnves in the greater sums, and can be defined by only the greater sums and not in contradiction to them.? Non-sense again What does certainty create? one anser? possible anwers? Words lnaguage, wholes? Could I get a nobel unles my scientific thought belongs to the people who define the nobel as nobel, and how they define is it their mind? and of course wirtten, and what else? Where are the wholes Stan when we start form something that is specific. Do you think that paliontology has nothing to do with Darwin? Do we search to find the past, or do we search to find what the person has in mind? Did the egyptiaon or greeks find foosils the accads, the soumerians? What would an Indain say about ancinect greek buildings if he lived in the near area? what explanation? I do not know Is it the whole histroy or is there history? the strings give you change in relations if there is something that could influence them, big or gretat change of what we may thinnk of the world, when one inserts the information?. do not know I have not tried to form them in an depictive order, I jsut gav= e relativity. Chaos has a depiction a small change in the system that is unstabel gives a great change, but still it is of math even if it is non-=3Dlinear the time = and space function is stabel, stable. Darwin is a small cahnge change? Is reality stabel? I do not proove anything I just ask.... If you also ask instead of prooving, it would be a good way to rediscovery= . is it? Best, Thanasis PS:Fortunately the second law has left the building, and now I am free. Do not worry Stan my logic is stiill intact, and can think of science, and will ask about science and research, it is fun... Maybe one has to accept the reality of others, in order to mve alone to finding what reality is. How didi Pauli put it this is so wrong that I can not proove that you are wrong... 2008/7/1 : > Thanasis -- > > > Stan- > > > > Do not get the -snip The larger Gestalt is the nothingness Gestalt... - > part, > > since it was the proposition that I was interersted in and a critique cou= ld > give me some information concerning the place I went to high uncertainty > speculation, do not know why it also happened twice, and why I pasted wro= ng > parts of answers. > > Another answer I got from a friend was this about the historical > speculation of reality... > > > > *In a sense, some operationists, such as the phsyicist Percy Bridgmann wh= o > started it all, while maintaining that knowledge was limited to observati= on > and thus theories, such as QM and standard planetary model of the atom, w= ere > not the same as realities, but he was in fact, rather solopsistic is sayi= ng > that every observation was unique, and involved the mind, experience, > sensory capabilities, etc. of the observer.* > > > S: I think that, after Berkeley, Uexk=FCll, Bridgman and postmoderni= sm, > solipsism in some form is here to stay. What we can know about the world > has been useful to us, but is demonstrated to be in a sense solipsistic b= y > the fact that our use of this knowledge has been destroying the environme= nt > we depend upon. > > > > Though the answer was from only what is real point- and the question was > from the historical analysis point of view, of how science and scientists > might have worked, and what were the possible meanings of their work, how > they started them, it helped somehow. > > > > Recently I found out of Einstein's philosophical background. > > Did his interest into the universal obsoletes, geometry, lead to the > general theory of relativity? have to know of the life of the person to k= now > of how he conceived his reality. > > Could there be a disagreement of what a person believes in and what is hi= s > scientific point of view? > > > S: Psychology can be a twisted thing, so I venture to answer, 'yes'= . > As well, while it is uncommon in science, irony may need to be taken into > account. > > > > Best, > > Thanasis > > > > Ps: Stan your second law has stuck also in my mind, and can not get rid o= f > it these days, I think it is infectious and also addictive. > > > S: It is a kind of infection, I agree. The idea has captured my > imagination. I think that cultural evolution leads to determining when a= n > idea's 'time has come'. Judging by its spread, this idea seems to be > arriving now. > > STAN > > > > > > > > > > > 2008/6/22 : > > Only one question, what of this proposition? > > > > -snip- > > > > Ps: Stan I understand about the brain but it has a possibility to collaps= e, > if it works too much and in the unstable conditions under pressure, so an= y > help is indeed welcome. Nietzsche understood that correctly > > * *If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. > > > S: And, like Narcissus, you will see yourself, and, if you are whol= e, > it will seem to be good. > > > > > > > > > 2008/6/11 : > > Thanasis -- > > > > Sorry to change the post, but had to because of the multiplicity of answe= rs > and subjects (though it gives much more information about what we discuss= , > it becomes an overload to follow) and I should restate the whole > condition again now in new bases. As I had written before and I guess we > accept it, knowledge restates previous bases from the new events. > > > > Stan something about the work, I think we should not try to create logica= l > foundations, as you said* start the work*, and try create a finite play > from all of this, but what we should do since it is an appraisal of what = we > find, is form only key questions about what we state, and try to state e= ver > wider conditions. > > What I have suggested till now and what is the base of what I am talking > about, is that each condition describes only its condition and the only > conditions that could approach fundamental conditions are those that woul= d > contain their opposites, or that are open to more and more sums of > knowledge, and from this conditions one should start having a picture > about that which is called our reality. > > > > So, here you invoke dialectics. > > > > The belief was such a condition, when stating that belief is not real, > but just a view, thus a view becomes real for us because we believe it so= , > and what is real in external reality eludes us. Moreover the belief syste= m > if one opens up to it, will depict that the belief is the center, the > broadening of beliefs opens up the system of the self, and if the self is > the only thing that one sees through therefor it is the world for him. > > This I gave in a coherent scheme, the rest QM, chaos, physics, psychology= , > social, differentiation, I just fish whenever I am open. > > > What is real for us is only viewed through our own senses and logics= . > And so reality does not exist apart from us. > > > > > > > When you say *work it* it is trying to impose your reality of a one or > two base scheme in order to find that reality, but when one is open to mo= re > and more, there is work, but it goes to a what one used to say subconscio= us > level (subconsiouss with the old meaning in the questions come back again > and again without trying to form them into answers, answers are the dead > end, even if they tech create reality with our science method) . And that= is > why actual work on this premise which opens up constantly if the > mind engulfs more and more horizons should not be done. Work (set to writ= e a > book or a thesis) is a finite process that offers little questions and > states many things thus inserting the person who reads it in a passive st= ate > of acceptance, and not of questioning. Questionings that are not the > language-math, base view, but the life view, I exist, let the mind go fre= e, > which is the whole condition. > > > The mind is working all the time, even in sleep, and ithe brainuses > more energy per unit mass than any other known tissue. > > > > > When I wrote not to write while not in the I look in the deep state, > that I was describing, cause the result as we say in the hierachical > structures, would be processual, and not structural, of the self the look= s > at the self. More to this fishing I give from a mail to a friend (when = my > mind opens I know it is cause it feals different). > > > Yes. > > > > This is from a mail to a friend... > > > > *Since you are in to dynamics you know that the mind could be depicted by > the use of attractors, these attractors could be defined by the meanings, > but it is also a simplistic as one might say a cognitive view, and reali= ty > is in the perception of reality itself, when from an external observer > becomes the mind itself. * > > * > I had been talking to Fred and some other scientists and told them that > there may be a confluence of perception, when we interact and that > communication can be approached when the states become similar otherwise > there is no understanding, and in this similarity the purpose is to open = up > beyond the event of what we already know. > Moreover the confluence might deter perception itself in creating new way= s > of understanding, and there may be many different kinds of understanding > that create kinds of knowledge, and this knowledge might create kinds of > worlds.* > > * > > When I first approached dynamics of the mind it was to find certain thing= s > that could cure mental illness, but then trying to understand more and mo= re, > not of the illness but of life, I came up that the illness is not only > something attributed to the individual nor of environment itself, but it > might be of civil origin. Meaning there may be statistical laws that depi= ct > certain events will happen (illness) in this civil paradigm, and thus to > find a cure one need not search the neuro but approach the civil or > reality itself, for the psychiatric or psychological approach could never > help change the many cases but the invention of psychiatry and psychic > illness could be part of one another, as it may be also with the inventio= n > of medicine and illness, saying that one was part of another a bifurcatio= n > in the perception of man that tried to balance a whole condition that bro= ke > down. * > > > I like this description. > > * > Unfortunately I have no proof of that but I think that I am right, and th= e > measures taken to battle the enemies of health can never restore the > previous whole condition, cause the whole paradigm is wrong, and the civi= l > is moving towards a worse and worse paradigm view.* > > > > One can never erase the past. There is always a residue, so, any > injury is permanent, and becomes renewed as one gets older. > > > * > As the police will never help stop crime, as money will always worsen > transactions, and laws will always make our life worse however many we > make. > > Carefully understand what I am saying in the world of particles, when a > photon is split then two different particles are created antisymmetric, > could it have to do with the macrocosmos I do not know, but that is what > came to my mind now. > Jung and Pauli had stated the similarities of physics and the psyche, but > it has been many years since them, and they have been forgotten. > > I also like you was raised in the duality of logic, logic in Greek derive= s > of logos, which means divide, so I have trouble discerning whole > conditions, and the whole world that we were brought up is this- logic > so I still think like all, dividing and not uniting.* > > > This is why we need holistic, esthetic understanding as well, as for > example, when Einstein intuited that gravitation and acceleration were th= e > same thing. > > > * The uniting thing would be creating larger schemes, and not going to th= e > smaller and smaller ones, dynamics has a picture like that, but still it = is > of logical foundation and I do not know if it truly understands the > wholeness of the aspects. > > Told Fred this .... > > The Gestalts work in an hierchical order, meaning that there are > {..[..(...)..]..} numbers of Gestalts, and that in one Gestalt there are > many smaller Gestalts-patterns that interact or not. So changes in the > smaller Gestalts could leave the larger Gestalt stable, but a change in t= he > larger Gestalt, could change each of the smaller Gestalt that it consists > of. Apply Gestalt in every condition of life and you might get a better > description, from atoms, to societies, to stars, to galaxies and you can = get > a better description. Do not forget that in a gestalt the observer alread= y > exists with the observant, and that the scheme that he creates is a Gesta= lt > of his mind, what this means have no absolutely idea now..* > > > Yes, this is the scale, or compositional hierarchy. > > *But I forgot the most important that the greater Gestalt was the self, > and that a greater and greater change of the self depicted completely > different things. So the view that I used was completely wrong and the wh= ole > view started from the self, nothing else existed than that.* > > *When the self became more of himself, and less of the other (the > attractors are a determent of the self) then the picture would broaden an= d > broaden, the Gestalts would diminish, as reality in itself could be endle= ss, > and the Gestalts are depictions of what we think of the world or of what = we > are.... > > I guess that the broadening of the self would become inserting the > fundamental questions of life, of what are we, and retaining the question > with no answer, and then opening up to the many events of life...* > > * > Jung insight was wide, he spoke, that the internal struggle would create = a > path to unsolve either externally or internally, he spoke of psychologica= l > conditions of course, but I wonder if it is of existence itself. > > Have no picture now, but Jung and his friends that followed a similar pat= h > spoke of honesty, which is nothing more than lucidity and of the psyche, = and > in order to discern this the honesty part is most essential, the lucid > condition that is.* > > > How about 'authenticity'? > > * > If you follow dynamics all your life there will be dynamics, but it offer= s > no real answers...but if you follow where Jung and others left off, then = it > will be just the beginning, Jung thought so... > > will you say is born from meanings and meanings have to do with biology, > and thus we say that biology is the source of meanings since changing > biology we could change the meanings, and there is nothing more than this > biology, but this is no answer...* > > > This is von Uexk=FCll. > > * > Biology in physics is nothing more than energy, matter and energy are > one, and this biology we refer to, is so unstable that if we see in the > physics form it will be indescribable, but still it remains solid, a > Gestalt.* > > * > So the question is why does the form remains solid, what makes the human > form stable? do not know. > > And if one thinks that there is only one answer or one question, then we > are fooled, there may be infinite. > > Unfortunately I have not found many how to do that, as I said a question > might be that a splitting in the world of events and when the question is > formed then also are the answers...unfortunately we are used to thinking = in > a passive way and not an active way.* > > > Try physical intuition. > > > STAN > > * > The force behind creation and innovation is will, so the real questions a= re > does one want to understand or not ? and what is it that he wants to > understand? if it is a simple picture, then his life will be a road > following that, but if it is life and its meanings, then it will always > twist and turn reaching an end only when he dies, if it is that what trul= y > happens... > ** * > > ------------------------------ > > > .ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, > .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal > {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif= ';} > .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink > {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, > .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed > {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass > span.EC_EmailStyle17 {font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:windowtext= ;} > .ExternalClass .EC_MsoChpDefault {;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} > .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;} > > > *Thanasis, your mind is a dynamic place indeed! Wonderful snippets that > resonate with many of my own experiences and musings.* > > * I particularly like your fractal description of gestalts within > gestalts, as I use a Russian Nesting Doll metaphor to talk about "self" i= n > self-organizing systems. (The dolls help me picture the global and local > communication and control functions ; with the vertical hierarchy of doll= s > representing the global functions in terms of bottom-up and top-down; > Likewise, then looking at each individual doll offers the horizontal > relationships, the internal/external organism environment agent-nearest > neighbor network interactions.) This is the essence of a fractal structur= e, > and it seems to me that self-organizing fractal structures are built and > maintained via interactive feedback control processes.* > > * * > > *But in my view, all the important action happens at the subjective level > (rather than from the objective perspective), for where an external obser= ver > chooses to place the boundary between any particular unit and another wit= hin > a gestalt is purely arbitrary. (For example, I am the Doll Sett, but I am > also a system of organs (next smaller doll), community of cells (next > smaller doll), gestalt of molecules (next smaller doll), atoms (next smal= ler > doll), and a network subatomic particles ( "smallest" doll), -any members= of > which could be given names other than that). But from the subjective > perspective, from the inside looking out (what Ken Wilbur calls > "internality") is where all the local action happens in any given gestalt= . > In a Darwinian sense, each self-part of any whole-Self gestalt is busy > interacting within its local environment doing its own co-creative thing, > which together with all the others at its level of organization gives ris= e > to higher level wholes. So what is happening at the local level is a > combination of positive and negative feedback processes that allow each d= oll > to define and alter its boundary of self by its connectivity parameter - = how > many local others it is connected to in any given moment. When the greate= r > gestalt is undergoing an entropic change, the local self contracts the > boundary momentarily in order to self-preserve (a negative feedback rever= sal > of the trend), stopping a potentially destructive signal conduction casca= de > in its tracks. Alternately, if a constructive change is occurring , the s= elf > can expand its boundary and allow the change by responding with a positiv= e > feedback response. Hence you have local communication and control that gi= ves > rise to higher levels, yet retains the fractal architecture. Make sense?* > > > > > * It does, but I gave you the bigger picture, if there are no Gestalts > there is no process, and it is a good description of the dolls, but I do = not > know how the feedbacks were produced and asserted.* > > *I also like what you said about the creation of illness. I suspect that > many "disorders" are actually clues to states of consciousness and > characteristics of the human psyche or human condition than we yet > understand. There is a fine line between creative genius and "insanity" a= nd > most of the spiritual revelations handed down across cultural time were > posited by "visions" that would clearly be labeled delusions these days. = I > think we need to be much more open and respectful to the wisdom of nature > before passing limiting judgments up who and what we are a conscious livi= ng > beings.* > > *Hi* > > > > *There I guess to begin one need ask questons of the formulations. There > is always a base under which a mindset is built and uncovering the mindse= t I > think that one could find some answers about the description of the minds= et > itself. This is actually a Gestalt set, where from the smaller mindset on= e > reverts to the larger mindset.* > > *So fractals I do not know what they represent, where they are found and > who founded them and which perspective. Organs, cells, molecules, atoms, > subatomic particles, yes fit exactly to the Gestalt picture, and from thi= s > picture one could built a theory of how they interract, but is it so?* > > *The larger Gestalt is the nothingness Gestalt where all things coexist, > and then we have formations of splitting the world, and even the depictio= n > of Gestalt is a misnaming, as the taoist used to say the Tao has no name, > chaos is formless...* > > *What are organs, cells, molecules, atoms etc... under the scientific > scope?.* > > * I tried one month ago to understand a prologue in QM and after a while > what I understood is that something was faulty, that the descriptions whe= re > all wrong and what in fact was described was the organs that measured the > existance of the particles themselves, which meant that certain kind of > equipment produced this result and the reality itself of what was going o= n > was not there. In fact there were no electrons, as before there were no > atoms, no molecules, nor cells, only the measuring equipment produced the > results, the measuring equipment that were built by a mind set to find > something. What this means I do not know, I have no insight now...* > > * * > > *If I want to turn to what is molecule my mind goes that it might be an > old theory trying to adjust to a new theory, and that the molecule never > existed, and what the physicists tried to do in order not to have a huge = gap > in their knowledge was try to fit QM data so as to fit the old paradigm o= f > atoms and molecules and nucleuses. And all this applications, the atomic > bomb, lasers, semiconductors? all this tech that we have nowdays do not t= his > assert the existence of the Gestalts? Yes it does, until we found somethi= ng > new in the world and produced new applications, many of them negating the > previews paradigms that existed, but still we would use because we had th= e > tech for it, and the language would remain of the previews paradigm.* > > *Carefull how the mind works its way in order to prove things it very > difficult for me to see through this and I have to study the history of t= he > discoveries and see how they were implemented, which means a lot, lot of > study, and forget what I was told for so many years at school, thus openi= ng > up reality. (And for that purpose the paradigm is a misconception and > reverts to a base for a theory to be applied, in order to have the wider > view one forgets paradigms, and attractors. The mind wants to built > something and uses words, but the words become a framework and entangle t= he > mind in the work )* > > * * > > *And maybe dynamics is this purpose, how to fil the gaps, of our old and > new theories, to prove that there truly exist atoms,molecules, cells, > organs, and not an everchanging void that our mind can not describe, but > formulates according to the organs we use and how we describe our finding= s > with the knowledge accumulated.* > > * * > > *And a cell for that purpose will last longer, as a cell has a deeper > foundation since it belongs to different discipline, it will remain the > principle of biology as it does not interract with physics. No physicist > could ever say that a cell is non-existent, but what he will try to do is > find formulations that could try to describe the cell from a fundumental > theory. So if you see to what I am pointing at is that to understand scie= nce > we should not see the science world but understand what the scientists do= , > what they have in the minds?* > > > > *This is Gestalt in its truer form, wider and wider descriptions * > > * * > > *So if I get the picture correct our whole science is an effort to > recreate fragments of the scientific world from 400 years to now to fill = the > gaps so as science to seem coherent. Do not answer yes or no, let your mi= nd > open to all that you know till now.* > > * * > > *Carefull now again this could remind you Thomas and the history of > scientific revolutions, Popper, but forget Thomas, he was fitted very wel= l > in the scientific world as not to disturb the scientific mindset, and the > questions behind that, he was categorised as a philosophy of science whil= e > scientists continued their ongoing search, if he was taken more seriously= , > he would have caused a rupture in the scientific community, and turned it > introvert, asking itself what are we doing all these years, from Newton t= o > now, what are we trying to view, what are we viewing. You see the greater > the belief a work has the more unsettlement it has, in the minds of peopl= e. > And if something goes introvert and is realized might it stop?* > > *Jung said of the split conditions , if something is realized then it > stops existing, and the opposites unite again.* > > * * > > *Do not answer yes or no to what I am saying, nor try to hold what you > viewed previously with argumentation, a base uses whatever means possible= to > represent itself, all arguments work to validate it, the only thing one c= an > do is gather information and let the formation of the bases broaden, and > this is Gestalt in the real sense, we could help one another understand, = if > we forget what we were tought and how we thought again, and think with > honesty, knowing were all this come from and what they mean to us and for= m > questions*... > > > > That is all for now, but there could be much more if one would follow > some statements, or correct other statements, I am not saying that I am > right, I say try to see so, correct or change these propositions when yo= u > can, and wonder what I am talking about means, not like language and reas= on > but of insight, cause maybe logic destroys more than what it tries to > understand. > > I guess that the world is seen through the condition of the self, and wh= en > the self is more of himself the condition of seeing and being would becom= e > more and more identical, and all the previews conditions of seeing would > collapse. As Pauli had stated, in The* Pauli exclusion principle* no > fermions can occupy the same condition in the atom, and I wonder whether > particle physics describes nor external reality but the mind itself, just= a > shallow thought, no insight, will take a long time for the second. > > > > Respectfully to all, > > Thanasis > > > ------=_Part_3116_12972512.1214901099827 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Maybe the snip part goes to history itself,
 
another solipsistic queston, coudl we view a past thea is not our own?=
Meaning of the now? or to set it differently meaning of the know?
 
Does the present interfere with the past? is there a past?
When was time invented?
 
In The sums manner small sums are involnves in the greater sums, and c= an be defined by only the greater sums and not in contradiction to them.?
 
Non-sense again
 
What does certainty create? one anser? possible anwers?
Words lnaguage, wholes?
 
Could I get a nobel unles my scientific thought belongs to the people = who define the nobel as nobel, and how they define is it their mind?
and of course wirtten, and what else?
 
Where are the wholes Stan when we start form something that is specifi= c.
Do you think that paliontology has nothing to do with Darwin?
 
Do we search to find the past, or do we search to find what the person= has in mind?
 
Did the egyptiaon or greeks find foosils the accads, the soumerians?
 
What would an Indain say about ancinect greek buildings if he lived in= the near area? what explanation?
 
I do not know
 
Is it the whole histroy or is there history?
 
the strings give you change in relations if there is something that co= uld influence them, big or gretat change of what we may thinnk of the world= , when one inserts the information?.
do not know I have not tried to form them in an depictive order, I jsu= t gave relativity.
 
Chaos has a depiction a small change in the system that is unstabel gi= ves a great change, but still it is of math even if it is non-=3Dlinear the= time and space function is stabel, stable.
 
Darwin is a small cahnge change?
Is reality stabel?
 
I do not proove anything I just ask....
 
 If you also ask instead of prooving, it would be a good way to r= ediscovery.
is it?
 
Best,
Thanasis
 
PS:Fortunately the second law has left the building, and now I am free= .
Do not worry Stan my logic is stiill intact, and can think of science,= and will ask about science and research, it is fun...
Maybe one has to accept the reality of others, in order to mve alone t= o finding what reality is.
How didi Pauli put it this is so wrong that I can not proove that you = are wrong...
 
2008/7/1 <complex-science@necsi.org>:
Thanasis --


Stan-
 
Do not get the -snip The = larger Gestalt is the nothingness Gestalt... - part,
since it was the proposition that I was intererst= ed in and a critique could give me some information concerning the place I = went to high uncertainty speculation, do not know why it also happened twic= e, and why I pasted wrong parts of answers.
Another answer I got from a friend was this about= the historical speculation of reality...
 
In a sense, some operatio= nists, such as the phsyicist Percy Bridgmann who started it all, while main= taining that knowledge was limited to observation and thus theories, such a= s QM and standard planetary model of the atom, were not the same as realiti= es, but he was in fact, rather solopsistic is saying that every observation= was unique, and involved the mind, experience, sensory capabilities, etc. = of the observer.

     S: I think that, after Berkeley, Uexk=FCll, B= ridgman and postmodernism, solipsism in some form is here to stay.  Wh= at we can know about the world has been useful to us, but is demonstrated t= o be in a sense solipsistic by the fact that our use of this knowledge has = been destroying the environment we depend upon.

 
Though the answer was from only what is= real point- and the question was from the historical analysis point of vie= w, of how science and scientists might have worked, and what were the possi= ble meanings of their work, how they started them, it helped somehow.
 
Recently I found out of Einstein's philosophi= cal background.
Did his interest into the universal obsolete= s, geometry,  lead to the general theory of relativity? have to k= now of the life of the person to know of how he conceived his reality.
Could there be a disagreement of what a person be= lieves in and what is his scientific point of view?

      S: Psychology can be a twisted thing, s= o I venture to answer, 'yes'.  As well, while it is uncommon i= n science, irony may need to be taken into account.

 
Best,
Thanasis
 
Ps: Stan your second law has stuck also in my min= d, and can not get rid of it these days, I think it is infectious and = also addictive.

      S: It is a kind of infection, I agree.&= nbsp; The idea has captured my imagination.  I think that cultural evo= lution leads to determining when an idea's 'time has come'.&nbs= p; Judging by its spread, this idea seems to be arriving now.

STAN

 
 



 
2008/6/22 <complex-science@necsi.org>:
Only one question,  what of this proposition?
 
-snip-
 
Ps: Stan I understand about the brain but it has a possibility = to collapse, if it works too much and in the unstable conditions under pres= sure, so any help is indeed welcome. Nietzsche understood that correctly
 If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaz= e back into you.

      S: And, like Narcissus, you = will see yourself, and, if you are whole, it will seem to be good.

 
 


2008/6/11 <complex-science@necsi.org>:
Thanasis --


Sorry to change the post, but had to because of t= he multiplicity of answers and subjects (though it gives muc= h more information about what we discuss, it becomes an overload to follow)= and I should restate the whole condition again now in new bases.= As I had written before and I guess we accept it, knowledge restates previ= ous bases from the new events.
 
Stan something about the work, I think we should not try to cre= ate logical foundations, as you said start the work, and try create = a finite play from all of this, but what we should do since = it is an appraisal of what we find,  is form only key questions a= bout what we state, and try to state ever wider conditions.
What I have suggested till now and what is the base of what I a= m talking about, is that each condition describes only its condition and th= e only conditions that could approach fundamental conditions are those= that would contain their opposites, or that are open to more and more= sums of knowledge, and from this conditions one should start having a= picture about that which is called our reality.


     So, here you invoke dialectics.
 
=
The belief was such a condition, when stating that be= lief is not real, but just a view, thus a view becomes real for u= s because we believe it so, and what is real in external reality&= nbsp;eludes us. Moreover the belief system if one opens up to it, will= depict that the belief is the center, the broadening of beliefs opens= up the system of the self, and if the self is the only thing that one sees= through therefor it is the world for him.
This I gave in a coherent scheme, the rest QM, chaos, phys= ics, psychology, social, differentiation, I just fish whenever I am op= en.

     What is real for us is only viewed thr= ough our own senses and logics.  And so reality does not exist apart f= rom us.

 
=
 
When you say  work it it is trying to impose y= our reality of a one or two base scheme in order to find that reality, but = when one is open to more and more, there is work, but it goes to a what one= used to say subconscious level (subconsiouss with the old meaning in the q= uestions come back again and again without trying to form them into an= swers, answers are the dead end, even if they tech create reality with our = science method) . And that is why actual work on this premise whi= ch opens up constantly if the mind engulfs more and more horizons=  should not be done. Work (set to write a book or a thesis) is a = finite process that offers little questions and states many things thus ins= erting the person who reads it in a passive state of acceptance, and not of= questioning. Questionings that are not the language-math, base v= iew, but the life view, I exist, let the mind go free, which is the whole c= ondition.

      The mind is working all the time= , even in sleep, and ithe brainuses more energy per unit mass than any othe= r known tissue.

 
=
When I wrote not to write while not in the I look in the d= eep state, that I was describing, cause the result as we say in the hi= erachical structures, would be processual, and not structural, of the = self the looks at the self.  More to this fishing I give from a m= ail to a friend  (when my mind opens I know it is cause it feals diffe= rent).

     Yes.
 
=
This is from a mail to a friend...
 
Since you are in to dynamics you know that the mind could be= depicted by the use of attractors, these attractors could be defined by th= e meanings, but it is also a simplistic as one might say  a cognitive = view, and reality is in the perception of reality itself, when from an= external observer  becomes the mind itself. 
 
I had been talking to Fred and some other scientis= ts and told them that there may be a confluence of perception, when we inte= ract and that communication can be approached when the states become simila= r otherwise there is no understanding, and in this similarity the purpose i= s to open up beyond the event of what we already know.
Moreover the confluence might deter perception itself in creating new ways = of understanding, and there may be many different kinds of understanding th= at create kinds of knowledge, and this knowledge might create kinds of worl= ds.
 

When I first approache= d dynamics of the mind it was to find certain things that could cure mental= illness, but then trying to understand more and more, not of the illness b= ut of life, I came up that the illness is not only something attributed to = the individual nor of environment itself, but it might be of civil ori= gin. Meaning there may be statistical laws that depict certain events will = happen (illness) in this civil paradigm, and thus to find a cure one need n= ot search the neuro but approach the civil or reality itself, for the = psychiatric or psychological approach could never help change the many case= s but the invention of psychiatry and psychic illness could be pa= rt of one another, as it may be also with the invention of medicine and ill= ness, saying that one was part of another a bifurcation in the perception o= f man that tried to balance a whole condition that broke down. =

     I like this description.
 
Unfortunatel= y I have no proof of that but I think that I am right, and the measures tak= en to battle the enemies of health can never restore the previous whole con= dition, cause the whole paradigm is wrong, and the civil is moving towards = a worse and worse paradigm view.


      One can never erase the past.&nb= sp; There is always a residue, so, any injury is permanent, and becomes ren= ewed as one gets older.

 
 As the= police will never help stop crime, as money will always worsen transa= ctions, and laws will always make our life worse however many we = make. 
 
Carefully understand what I am saying in the world= of particles, when a photon is split then two different particles are crea= ted antisymmetric, could it have to do with the macrocosmos I do not know, = but that is what came to my mind now.
Jung and Pauli had stated the similarities of physics and the psyche, but i= t has been many years since them, and they have been forgotten.
 I also like you was raised in the duality of logic, logic in Greek d= erives of logos, which means divide, so I have trouble discerning whole con= ditions, and the whole world that we were brought up is this- log= ic
so I still think like all, dividing and not uniting.

     This is why we need holistic, esthetic= understanding as well, as for example, when Einstein intuited that gravita= tion and acceleration were the same thing.

 The uniting thin= g would be creating larger schemes, and not going to the smaller and smalle= r ones, dynamics has a picture like that, but still it is of logical founda= tion and I do not know if it truly understands the wholeness of the aspects= .
 
Told Fred this ....
 
 The Gestalts work in an= hierchical order, meaning that there are {..[..(...)..]..} numbers of Gest= alts, and that in one Gestalt there are many smaller Gestalts-patterns that= interact or not. So changes in the smaller Gestalts could leave the larger= Gestalt stable, but a change in the larger Gestalt, could change each of t= he smaller Gestalt that it consists of. Apply Gestalt in every condition of= life and you might get a better description, from atoms, to societies, to = stars, to galaxies and you can get a better description. Do not forget that= in a gestalt the observer already exists with the observant, and that the = scheme that he creates is a Gestalt of his mind, what this means have = no absolutely idea now..

     Yes, this is the scale, or composi= tional hierarchy.
But I forgot the most = important that the greater Gestalt was the self, and that a greater an= d greater change of the self depicted completely different things. So the v= iew that I used was completely wrong and the whole view started from the se= lf, nothing else existed than that.
When the self became more of himself= , and less of the other (the attractors are a determent of the self) t= hen the picture would broaden and broaden, the Gestalts would diminish= , as reality in itself could be endless, and the Gestalts are depictions of= what we think of the world or of what we are....
 
I guess that the broadening of the self would become inserti= ng the fundamental questions of life, of what are we, and retaining the que= stion with no answer, and then opening up to the many events of life...=
 
Jung insight was wide, he = spoke, that the internal struggle would create a path to unsolve eithe= r externally or internally, he spoke of psychological conditions of course,= but I wonder if it is of existence itself.
 
Have no picture now, but Jung and his friends that followed a sim= ilar path spoke of honesty, which is nothing more than lucidity and of the = psyche, and in order to discern this the honesty part is most essential, th= e lucid condition that is.

     How about 'authenticity'?<= br>
 
If you follo= w dynamics all your life there will be dynamics, but it offers no real answ= ers...but if you follow where Jung and others left off, then it will be jus= t the beginning, Jung thought so...
 
will you say is born from meanings and meanings have to= do with biology, and thus we say that biology is the source of meanings si= nce changing biology we could change the meanings, and there is nothing mor= e than this biology, but this is no answer...

      This is von Uexk=FCll.
 
Biology in p= hysics is nothing more than energy, matter and energy are one, an= d this biology we refer to, is so unstable that if we see in the physi= cs form it will be indescribable, but still it remains solid, a Gestal= t.
 
So the question is why doe= s the form remains solid, what makes the human form stable? do not know.&nb= sp;
 
And if one thinks that there is only one answer or one que= stion, then we are fooled, there may be infinite.
 
Unfortunately I have not found many how to do that, as I sai= d a question might be that a splitting in the world of events and when the = question is formed then also are the answers...unfortunately we are used to= thinking in a passive way and not an active way.

     Try physical intuition.

STAN
 
The force be= hind creation and innovation is will, so the real questions are does one wa= nt to understand or not ? and what is it that he wants to understand? = if it is a simple picture, then his life will be a road following that, but= if it is life and its meanings, then it will always twist and turn reachin= g an end only when he dies, if it is that what truly happens...
 
 
.ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_M= soNormal, .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:= 11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';} .E= xternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-d= ecoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoH= yperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass s= pan.EC_EmailStyle17 {font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';col= or:windowtext;} .ExternalClass .EC_MsoChpDefault {;} @page Section1 {size:8= .5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;}

Thanasis, your mind is a dynamic place indeed! Wonderful sni= ppets that resonate with many of my own experiences and musings.
 I particularly like your fractal description of gestal= ts within gestalts, as I use a Russian Nesting Doll metaphor to talk about = "self" in self-organizing systems. (The dolls help me picture the= global and local communication and control functions ; with the vertical h= ierarchy of dolls representing the global functions in terms of bottom-up a= nd top-down; Likewise, then looking at each individual doll offers the hori= zontal relationships, the internal/external organism environment agent-near= est neighbor network interactions.) This is the essence of a fractal struct= ure, and it seems to me that self-organizing fractal structures are  b= uilt and maintained via interactive feedback control processes.
 
But in my view, all the important action happens at the subj= ective level (rather than from the objective perspective), for where an ext= ernal observer chooses to place the boundary between any particular unit an= d another within a gestalt is purely arbitrary. (For example, I am the Doll= Sett, but I am also a system of organs (next smaller doll), community of c= ells (next smaller doll), gestalt of molecules (next smaller doll), atoms (= next smaller doll), and a network subatomic particles ( "smallest"= ; doll), -any members of which could be given names other than that). But f= rom the subjective perspective, from the inside looking out (what Ken Wilbu= r calls "internality") is where all the local action happens in a= ny given gestalt. In a Darwinian sense, each self-part of any whole-Self ge= stalt  is busy interacting within its local environment doing its own = co-creative thing, which together with all the others at its level of organ= ization gives rise to higher level wholes. So what is happening at the loca= l level is a combination of positive and negative feedback processes that a= llow each doll to define and alter its boundary of self by its connectivity= parameter - how many local others it is connected to in any given moment. = When the greater gestalt is undergoing an entropic change, the local self c= ontracts the boundary momentarily in order to self-preserve (a negative fee= dback reversal of the trend), stopping a potentially destructive signal con= duction cascade in its tracks. Alternately, if a constructive change is occ= urring , the self can expand its boundary and allow the change by respondin= g with a positive feedback response. Hence you have local communication and= control that gives rise to higher levels, yet retains the fractal architec= ture. Make sense?



 It does, but I gave you the bigger picture, if there a= re no Gestalts there is no process, and it is a good description of the dol= ls, but I do not know how the feedbacks were produced and asserted.
I also like what you said about the creation of illness. I s= uspect that many "disorders" are actually clues to states of cons= ciousness and characteristics of the human psyche or human condition than w= e yet understand. There is a fine line between creative genius and "in= sanity" and most of the spiritual revelations handed down across cultu= ral time were posited by "visions" that would clearly be labeled = delusions these days. I think we need to be much more open and respectful t= o the wisdom of nature before passing limiting judgments up who and what we= are a conscious living beings.
Hi
 
There I guess to begin one need ask = questons of the formulations. There is always a base under which a mindset = is built and uncovering the mindset I think that one could find some answer= s about the description of the mindset itself. This is actually a Gestalt s= et, where from the smaller mindset one reverts to the larger mindset.
So fractals I do not know what they&= nbsp;represent, where they are found and who founded them and which perspec= tive. Organs, cells,  molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, = ;yes fit exactly to the Gestalt picture, and from this picture one cou= ld built a theory of how they interract, but is it so?
The larger Gestalt is the nothingnes= s Gestalt where all things coexist, and then we have formations of splittin= g the world, and even the depiction of Gestalt is a misnaming, as= the taoist used to say the Tao has no name, chaos is formless...
What are organs, cells, molecul= es, atoms etc... under the scientific scope?.
 I tried one month ago to under= stand a prologue in QM and after a while what I understood is that somethin= g was faulty, that the descriptions where all wrong and what in fact was de= scribed was the organs that measured the existance of the particles th= emselves, which meant that certain kind of equipment produced this result a= nd the reality itself of what was going on was not there. In fact there wer= e no electrons, as before there were no atoms, no molecules, nor cells= , only the measuring equipment produced the results, the measuring equipmen= t that were built by a mind set to find something. What this mean= s I do not know,  I have no insight now...
 
If I want to turn to what is molecul= e my mind goes that it might be an old theory trying to adjust to a ne= w theory, and that the molecule never existed, and what the physicists trie= d to do in order not to have a huge gap in their knowledge was try to fit Q= M data so as to fit the old paradigm of atoms and molecules and nucleuses. = And all this applications, the atomic bomb, lasers, semiconductors? all thi= s tech that we have nowdays do not this assert the existence of the Gestalt= s? Yes it does, until we found something new in the world and produced new = applications, many of them negating the previews paradigms that existed, bu= t still we would use because we had the tech for it, and the language would= remain of the previews paradigm.
Carefull how the mind works its way = in order to prove things it very difficult for me to see through = this and I have to study the history of the discoveries and see how th= ey  were implemented, which means a lot, lot of study, and forget what= I was told for so many years at school, thus opening up reality. (And= for that purpose the paradigm is a misconception and reverts to a base for= a theory to be  applied, in order to have the wider view one forgets = paradigms, and attractors. The mind wants to built something and uses words= , but the words become a framework and entangle the mind in the work )=
 
And maybe dynamics is this purpose, = how to fil the gaps, of our old and new theories, to prove that there truly= exist atoms,molecules, cells, organs, and not an everchanging void that ou= r mind can not describe, but formulates according to the organs we use and = how we describe our findings with the knowledge accumulated.
 
And a cell for that purpose wil= l last longer, as a cell has a deeper foundation since it belongs= to different discipline, it will remain the principle of biology as it doe= s not interract with physics. No physicist could ever say that a cell is no= n-existent, but what he will try to do is find formulations that could try = to describe the cell from a fundumental theory. So if you see to what I am = pointing at is that to understand science we should not see the scienc= e world but understand what the scientists do, what they have in the minds?=


This is Gestalt in its truer form,&n= bsp;wider and wider descriptions 
 
So if I get the picture correct our = whole science is an effort to recreate fragments of the scientifi= c world from 400 years to now to fill the gaps so as science to seem cohere= nt. Do not answer yes or no, let your mind open to all that you know t= ill now.
 
Carefull now again this could remind= you Thomas and the history of scientific revolutions, Popper, but forget T= homas, he was fitted very well in the scientific world as not to disturb th= e scientific mindset, and the questions behind that, he was categorised as = a philosophy of science while scientists continued their ongoing searc= h, if he was taken more seriously, he would have caused a rupture in the sc= ientific community, and turned it introvert, asking itself what are we doin= g all these years, from Newton to now, what are we trying to view, what are= we viewing. You see the greater the belief a work has the more unsettlemen= t it has, in the minds of people. And if something goes introvert and is re= alized might it stop?
Jung said of the split conditions , = if something is realized then it stops existing, and the opposites unite ag= ain.
 
Do not answer yes or no to what I am= saying, nor try to hold what you viewed previously with argumentation, a b= ase uses whatever means possible to represent itself, all arguments work to= validate it, the only thing one can do is gather information and let the f= ormation of the bases broaden, and this is Gestalt in the real sense, we co= uld help one another understand, if we forget what we were tought and how w= e thought again, and think with honesty, knowing were all this come from an= d what they mean to us and form questions...
 
 That is all for now, but the= re could be much more if one would follow some statements, o= r correct other statements, I am not saying that I am right, I say try=  to see so,  correct or change these propositions when you c= an, and wonder what I am talking about means, not like language and re= ason but of insight, cause maybe logic destroys more than what it tries to = understand.
 I guess that the world is seen th= rough the condition of the self, and when the self is more of himself = the condition of seeing and being would become more and more identical, and= all the previews conditions of seeing would collapse. As Pauli had stated,=  in The Pauli exclusion principle no fermions can occ= upy the same condition in the atom, and I wonder whether particle physics&n= bsp;describes nor external reality but the mind itself, just a sh= allow thought, no insight, will take a long time for the second. 
 
Respectfully to all,
Thanasis 


------=_Part_3116_12972512.1214901099827--