understanding and mental operations

[Ferenc]

Understanding also means identification with the subject (object) that
you ant to understand. If it is a moving , you move together with it.
it is a lie on a piece of paper, your gaze will follow it. If it is an
object in space you are in it or on it, moving together - this is the
perspective of the bug attached to an object (the other one is that of
a spider's), it is the from within perspective. So when you explain
how the animo graph is generated - whether you want it or not - you
will be disclosing your mental operations that are of the same set as
mine - we all think with the same repertory of tools working on
different chinks of reality. The it is very likely that i can find
matching operations that yield the same results in my mind and some
operations that I either do not recognize or find illegal or contrary
to my knowledge, which is of course not absolute and debatable but can
be discussed in the open. I have already identified a set of mental
operations that I realize as existing in my mind and with a bit of
hope i can recognize the same operations in your mind when you produce
your animo graphs or anything else that is your mental product.

[Dmitriy Shabanov]

I have questions back:

do different mental operations possible?
if yes, do they create different knowledge space?

in my understanding animo graph is one possible representation of external object, it was design to be unambiguous. (only requirement it have, unambiguous in relationship/connection representation).

--
Dmitriy Shabanov

[Thomas White]

I think there is an important missing piece - this is the common
shared knowledge and understanding that serves as a base and context
which we do not talk about but we expect to be the same between the
communicating parties.
Exactly the same word, gesture, action or position the body has
completely efferent meaning and interpretation in different
continents, countries, regions, races, age groups, occasions or
gender. What one can do or say in a football match or a night club
will have completely different meaning in a church, in the court of
law or in a presence of a young child.

That is why it is important always to to have a way to set, change and
refer to a specific context.

Understanding does not mean to identify with the object. It is to
become familiar with the reasons and methods in which something
operates and being able to predict a behaviour or an event - the Sun
will rise in the morning. I not the Sun but I know the reasons why it
will rise for sure.

Thomas

------

Thomas White

Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
Skype: thomaswhite
gTalk: thomas.0007
http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007

[Dmitriy Shabanov]

Did you say "common knowledge"?

The idea that that knowledge will be produce during graph/system evaluation/life base on simple algorithms. Each of them should be very simple and trivial, but in connection create very complex creature.

So, plan to start with empty graph, invite different people from different regions/cultures/languages and ...

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Thomas White <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there is an important missing piece - this is the common
shared knowledge and understanding that serves as a base and context
which we do not talk about but we expect to be the same between the
communicating parties.
Exactly the same word, gesture, action or position the body has
completely efferent meaning and interpretation in different
continents, countries, regions, races, age groups, occasions or
gender. What one can do or say in a football match or a night club
will have completely different meaning in a church, in the court of
law or in a presence of a young child.

That is why it is important always to to have a way to set, change and
refer to a specific context.

Understanding does not mean to identify with the object. It is to
become familiar with the reasons and methods in which something
operates and being able to predict a behaviour or an event - the Sun
will rise in the morning. I not the Sun but I know the reasons why it
will rise for sure.

--
Dmitriy Shabanov

[Thomas White]

I think it will be much easier to have a mechanism to create the
context on fly, something like "This is a common knowledge, save it in
context:XXX" and another one "Set the context to: YYY" and use current
context ( as part of hierarchical contexts, processing from
bottom->top and interpreting from to->bottom ) to refine rule
resolution on the top of other rules that has been already matched.

Football match -> Wembley -> Sunday -> World Cup -> ( screaming +
tearing your shirt off + drinking beer + swearing ) = heaving a good
time
Religion -> Celebrations -> Church -> Christmas -> ( screaming
+ tearing your shirt off + drinking beer + swearing ) = eternal
damnation, :-)))

From my point of view the context is a key to resolve multi variant
cases much easily.

Thomas

------

Thomas White

Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
Skype: thomaswhite
gTalk: thomas.0007
http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007

[Ferenc Kovacs]

identification with the subject of your focus does not mean that you believe that you are the sun. Identification symply meansthat the the object in yozr focue and you as the container of that focus are the same thing, although you can flip flop in between.onetx is always present as your self, the sense in terms of which you perceive objects in. Even neurons have a prior and post prior mode of operation with respect to what stimulus a neiuron expects to receive ands what id actually does, and all that is done on the comparions of differences whci are propostional to likelyhood or probability. EWhen you have a blackout, the next thing to becoem awaked to is a vide rande of possibilites, wned the lights ho on, yoz have only two kinds of possible inpits, your expected inpur from past knowledge and your atual experience from precent input and the differencde is that matters and unpades your past experienmce aka knowledge

[FERENC KOVACS]

the size of the context of any object is proportional to the identifier of the objects. If an objet is identified in terms of realtions, then the context of an object for one object is the properties that that second obejcts can derive from his relations (verbs, operations or act) that produce properties that may have or nothave been verifies against simialr conetxt created by other peopel This is why langauge is about synchronization in sapcetime, or falsisifctaion which means repeated etsts of hypoteheses against evidence

[FERENC KOVACS]

further to identification - it is about identifying with the movement of an obejct, the path that it follows. If it is th Sun, you identify with its radiation that touches you and you ara happy with that contacti or connection andth flux thereby created. If you do not want to identify with an obejct, you avod such a conact even in your phantasy.

From: Dmitriy Shabanov <shab...@gmail.com>
To: anim...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011, 14:35
Subject: Re: [animotron] understanding and mental operations

[Ferenc Kovacs]

More importantly, mental operations may  be separated in terms of the logic used, but they are rarely separate in terms of emotion and will, which are related to acting. So identification is not about identifying ourselves with an object as per the definition of what the object and we are, but where we are going with respect to each other, what are our "signs" so mental operations create on space and the relevant emotions create another space and the two are are connected and lead to decisions making which is affected by a third space often called volition or will. So with the general ambition to act in harmony both inside and outside and within in accordance with the coordination of the cognitive and emotional sensors may serve as a good explanation of human behaviour and acting

[Ferenc Kovacs]

The inferences that we make about that vast array of common knowledge does involve identification. We assume, believe that we all think the same or similar way and when we find out that we do not, then we accept or refuse other knowledge or understanding of the world through identifying or not identifying with those views not the objects, but the courses that those objects take or follow