A Correspondence of Ontological Categories and the Jewish Script
3,704 views
Skip to first unread message
Brandon Woodson
Sep 2, 2014, 3:11:34 PM9/2/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Okay, as agreed in an earlier post, I've collected and compared a few example sets of basic ideas meant to represent the ontological categories, and found most to be either too general and/or incomplete or too specific and superfluous. The abstractions derived from the Hebrew alphabet, or the Jewish script, presents the ideas in a way that (seemingly) is complete enough and accessible to the practical analyst. It implements a simple scheme which bears further explanation, so I've included a brief description. I used the webpage of the Meru Research Foundation webpage, cross-referenced against other resources located on the web to establish accuracy and further a personal sense of understanding of the categorizations purportedly symbolized.
The modern Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters in medial form and five letters in final-letter form, which are merely modifications of five of the preceding 22, for a total of 27 letter total. That is, Kaf (final), Mem (final), Nun (final), Pe (final), Tsadi (final), are repeated in a medial and final-letter form. The paleo-Hebrew script does not, and only consists of the first 22. Because they may all prove important for maintaining the overall scheme, some method may have to be devised to visually and auditorily represent the final five of the 27 letter along with the paleo-Hebrew characters, unless one elects to stick with only the modern alphabet.
There are 9 basic ideas, which are interspersed between three forms: archetypal, inner (manifest or spiritual), and outer (cosmic or physical). Just as above where the phonemic identities of five letters are repeated, so are the 9 basic ideas repeated - to account for the observer (subjective) aspect of all cognition. (According to some mathematicians, only the second of which is needed accurately model of all of reality. Binary logic, anyone?)
(Loosely based on information from meru.org, and for cross-reference, other miscellaneous sites)
The 9 basic ideas - the archetypes - are:
All
Difference
gimel - ACTION lamed - INNER ACTION shin - OUTER ACTION
dalet - DIVISION mem - INNER DIVISION tav - OUTER DIVISION
he - CONNECTION nun - INNER CONNECTION kaf (final) - OUTER CONNECTION
vav - MULTIPLICATION samekh - INNER MULTIPLICATION mem (final) - OUTER MULTIPLICATION
zayin - PROJECTION ayin - INNER PROJECTION nun (final) - OUTER PROJECTION
het - ENCOMPASSMENT pe - INNER ENCOMPASSMENT pe (final) - OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT
tet - COMPLETION tsadi - INNER COMPLETION tsadi (final) - OUTER COMPLETION
And links to resources containing the paleo-Hebrew and Hebrew translations and literal meanings of these Hebrew to English transliterations:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html
http://www.meru.org/letteressays/letterindex.html
Despite some obvious differences between the meanings given for the two sources, the above - which is loosely based on the scheme from meru.org - captures the universal concepts best relating to the sum of the translations between the various (named and unnamed) resources used. Also, it resembles the ontological concepts employed by some applications of frame relational theory training, including the one from this study which saw I.Q. score improvements in the 1-2 SD range in such a short time frame:
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&context=tpr
(The "more than/less than" concept in the study isn't explicit in the Jewish script alone, to my knowledge, though it's easily deduced thereby implicitly. That concept can be added with relative ease by the individual, if so desired, along with something to represent the laws of transitivity, symmetry, etc.)
I'll begin piloting the so-inspired variant of quantum wave streaming, perhaps starting this week, after I've committed everything to memory and can effortlessly recall the entire script in all sorts of random order. :P Because I anticipate being a.f.k. in a day or so for weeks to follow, I'll sporadically update with progress when able (as time and Internet access permits), and encourage anyone who dares attempt to undertake this most ambitious (and maybe Sisyphean?) exercise in reasoning to eventually do the same.
Also, pointers and suggestions to improve the aforementioned system are greatly appreciated. Seriously. :)
Good luck out there!
--Brandon
The modern Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters in medial form and five letters in final-letter form, which are merely modifications of five of the preceding 22, for a total of 27 letter total. That is, Kaf (final), Mem (final), Nun (final), Pe (final), Tsadi (final), are repeated in a medial and final-letter form. The paleo-Hebrew script does not, and only consists of the first 22. Because they may all prove important for maintaining the overall scheme, some method may have to be devised to visually and auditorily represent the final five of the 27 letter along with the paleo-Hebrew characters, unless one elects to stick with only the modern alphabet.
There are 9 basic ideas, which are interspersed between three forms: archetypal, inner (manifest or spiritual), and outer (cosmic or physical). Just as above where the phonemic identities of five letters are repeated, so are the 9 basic ideas repeated - to account for the observer (subjective) aspect of all cognition. (According to some mathematicians, only the second of which is needed accurately model of all of reality. Binary logic, anyone?)
(Loosely based on information from meru.org, and for cross-reference, other miscellaneous sites)
The 9 basic ideas - the archetypes - are:
All
Difference
Action
Division
Connection
Unfoldment/Multiplication
Projection
Encompassment
Completion
The 9 basic ideas are manipulated into inner and outer forms.
The inner forms of these 9 basic ideas are:
Inner All (Collection)
Inner Difference (Inside)
Inner Action (Internal Action)
Inner Division (Subtraction/Isolation)
Inner Connection (Middle/Nexus/Center)
Inner Multiplication (Sustain/Support)
Inner Projection (Infinitesimal/Reception)
Inner Encompassment (Swallow/Engulf)
Inner Completion
The outer forms of these 9 basic ideas are:
Outer All (Copy)
Outer Difference (Outside)
Outer Action (External Action)
Outer Division (Pluralization)
Outer Connection (Possess)
Outer Multiplication (Expansion)
Outer Projection (Infinity/Projection)
Outer Encompassment (Puff out)
Outer Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above are the abstractions which are based on the concrete manifestations of each letter. The concrete manifestations themselves weren't included. However, I've link a resources by which the ancient script and the concrete meanings of each term can be found. It might help in the assimilation of each abstraction above to have some visual aid, ergo the preservation of the letters along with the abstractions, especially since the differences between some of the meanings can be quite subtle.
There was much discrepancy from one resource to another, yet I think I finally pinned the most general character relevant to them in each letter. Feel free to check many references for yourself to confirm accuracy, and even criticize, as there might be some error(s) despite my efforts.
To reduce redundancy, I'll mention the inner and outer manifestations, or rather their differences, leaving the individual to personally infer the synthesis (the archetype) between the dualistic inner and outer forms. The script itself may seem redundant on its own. But after applying the context of the observer, which is present no matter what we are contemplating, one realizes the marvelous ingenuity that goes into a system which inherently pays due acknowledgement to observation. And which by its very structure encourages the analyst to consider the thought in the context of the dualism which naturally embodies it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for the descriptions:
Inner & Outer ALL
Inner All means (from a prospective looking in) the collection, the whole of something. Outer All means (from a prospective looking out) copies or likeness.
From the vantage of a single orange among a bunch of oranges, the orange itself, as a singleton, would be Inner All. Note the heterogeneity. From the same perspective as Outer All, the other oranges are replications of itself. Note the emphasized homogeneity.
Inner & Outer DIFFERENCE
Inner Difference means inside, within. Outer Difference means outside, without.
Pretty self explanatory. The any perspective we takes has both that which is contained, that which is not.
Inner & Outer ACTION
Inner Action means action upon the self. Outer Action means, rather than just action, action by the self (but not upon the self).
Inner & Outer DIVISION
Inner Division is division from the prospective of the divided, so self-removal or isolation. Outer Division is subdivision.
This is a good example where the concrete manifestation of a letter comes in handy. Outer Division is often translated as mark, like the marks of a ruler. The observer sees the objects which is divided, becoming more fractionated. Inner Division is simply removal without awareness of that divided from, though the same event is transpiring. All about the frame of reference.
Inner & Outer CONNECTION
Inner Connection means the center, nexus, middle, or hub. Outer Connection means possession, ownership, an inversion of the former.
Inner & Outer MULTIPLICATION
Inner Multiplication means to support or heal. Outer Multiplication means to unfold, grow, blossom.
Perhaps a good way to think of Inner Multiplication is, when one increases the density of something, the unit itself is reinforced, supported, or strengthened. When something multiplies (in the basic arithmetical or duplicating sense used to teach kids the skill of multiplication) as does Outer Multiplication, the individual unit doesn't strengthen.
Inner & Outer PROJECTION
Inner Projection means to project toward or receive. Outer Projection means project away from (infinitely).
This one is like sight. When light enters the eye, lights is travelling towards the self. However, the span of one's eyesight *can* be viewed as beginning at one's self and extending outward.
Inner & Outer ENCOMPASSMENT
Inner Encompassment means to push outward, or expand from the inside. Outer Encompassment means to engulf, or expand from the outside.
(This duality reminds me of Chris Langan's notion of conspansive duality.)
Inner & Outer COMPLETION
Inner Completion means upright or virtuous. Outer Completion means sturdy.
The distinction here seems more superficial than the others, perhaps because it seems more idealistic than mathematical. Nevertheless it is part of the set, and looks can be deceiving. Maybe the usefulness of this distinction will become more apparent after getting into the swing of applying the letters to quantum wave streaming. If for no other reason, it might serve to keep the ubiquitous observer-object relationship intact. While I intend to use all 27 letters for the time being, feel free to include or exclude this last one based on preference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the scrupulous individual might have noticed that there evidently is a general redundancy at play. That is, that the nine archetypes is mostly set in pairs, or mirroring from the end backwards as it proceeds alphabetically, or reverse alphabetically from the beginning forward.
All, Difference, Action, Division, Connection, Multiplication, Projection, Encompassment, Completion
All pairs with Completion
Difference with Encompassment
Action with Projection
Division with Multiplication
Connection by its lonesome.
The design might be a process among the archetypes, leading from the undifferentiated to the differentiated but unified, with Connection being a bridge or connection on a self-referential level between the first and last 4. It's possible the redundancy serves to relate to the hierarchical nature of information and reality.
In any case, there needs to be some justification (besides versatility and considerations for frame of reference) to prevent anyone concerned with simplicity from pruning the alphabet down to the original 9, or even only the latter 18 without the first 9. The most cogent justification I've found so far says (in so many words) that All - Division are analytic functions and Multiplication - Complete are synthetic functions. This would make sense if the script was also used as a creation narrative by mystics.
You see, the analytic/synthetic divide is based on the nature of the action and the inner/outer divide is based on perspective. The relationship between analytic/synthetic divide and the inner/outer divide is the nature of an act from differing perspectives.
Take the inflation of a balloon. An inflated balloon, which consists of the balloon and the gases therein, has certain cause and effect dynamic which depends on perspective. The balloon is inflated to the opposition of the sum of contracting forces of the balloon's material which would expel or compress the gases if it weren't for the gases' overpowering force. As it concerns this simplified example, there are two forces and two agents upon which the two forces act.
From the perspective of the balloon, we are the cause of the contraction and effect of the expansion. From the perspective of all the gases in the balloon, we are the cause of the expansion and the effect of the contraction. Though, mind you, we were crossing identities in one sense (Inner/Outer), we were deconstructing and constructing in another (analytic/synthetic). This example might be used to analogize the distinction between Inner & Outer Difference and Inner & Outer Projection, by the way.
One is free to permanently adopt a reduction of this system, a subset of the characters - maybe the first 9 or latter 18. I think Relational Frame Theorists might be working with a "dumbed-down" set. But the alterations to one's ability to analyze by internalizing all 27 ideas will likely dwarf those reaped by any reduced system. It may help to ease into the system slowly, taking the integration of the 27 ideas in small steps, rather than one bold, gigantic leap.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And without further ado, an alphabetized correspondence of the alphabet and the mathematical ideas described above.
(Transliterations per Wikipedia)
alef - ALL yod - INNER ALL qof - OUTER ALL
bet - DIFFERENCE kaf - INNER DIFFERENCE resh - OUTER DIFFERENCE
Division
Connection
Unfoldment/Multiplication
Projection
Encompassment
Completion
The 9 basic ideas are manipulated into inner and outer forms.
The inner forms of these 9 basic ideas are:
Inner All (Collection)
Inner Difference (Inside)
Inner Action (Internal Action)
Inner Division (Subtraction/Isolation)
Inner Connection (Middle/Nexus/Center)
Inner Multiplication (Sustain/Support)
Inner Projection (Infinitesimal/Reception)
Inner Encompassment (Swallow/Engulf)
Inner Completion
The outer forms of these 9 basic ideas are:
Outer All (Copy)
Outer Difference (Outside)
Outer Action (External Action)
Outer Division (Pluralization)
Outer Connection (Possess)
Outer Multiplication (Expansion)
Outer Projection (Infinity/Projection)
Outer Encompassment (Puff out)
Outer Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above are the abstractions which are based on the concrete manifestations of each letter. The concrete manifestations themselves weren't included. However, I've link a resources by which the ancient script and the concrete meanings of each term can be found. It might help in the assimilation of each abstraction above to have some visual aid, ergo the preservation of the letters along with the abstractions, especially since the differences between some of the meanings can be quite subtle.
There was much discrepancy from one resource to another, yet I think I finally pinned the most general character relevant to them in each letter. Feel free to check many references for yourself to confirm accuracy, and even criticize, as there might be some error(s) despite my efforts.
To reduce redundancy, I'll mention the inner and outer manifestations, or rather their differences, leaving the individual to personally infer the synthesis (the archetype) between the dualistic inner and outer forms. The script itself may seem redundant on its own. But after applying the context of the observer, which is present no matter what we are contemplating, one realizes the marvelous ingenuity that goes into a system which inherently pays due acknowledgement to observation. And which by its very structure encourages the analyst to consider the thought in the context of the dualism which naturally embodies it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for the descriptions:
Inner & Outer ALL
Inner All means (from a prospective looking in) the collection, the whole of something. Outer All means (from a prospective looking out) copies or likeness.
From the vantage of a single orange among a bunch of oranges, the orange itself, as a singleton, would be Inner All. Note the heterogeneity. From the same perspective as Outer All, the other oranges are replications of itself. Note the emphasized homogeneity.
Inner & Outer DIFFERENCE
Inner Difference means inside, within. Outer Difference means outside, without.
Pretty self explanatory. The any perspective we takes has both that which is contained, that which is not.
Inner & Outer ACTION
Inner Action means action upon the self. Outer Action means, rather than just action, action by the self (but not upon the self).
Inner & Outer DIVISION
Inner Division is division from the prospective of the divided, so self-removal or isolation. Outer Division is subdivision.
This is a good example where the concrete manifestation of a letter comes in handy. Outer Division is often translated as mark, like the marks of a ruler. The observer sees the objects which is divided, becoming more fractionated. Inner Division is simply removal without awareness of that divided from, though the same event is transpiring. All about the frame of reference.
Inner & Outer CONNECTION
Inner Connection means the center, nexus, middle, or hub. Outer Connection means possession, ownership, an inversion of the former.
Inner & Outer MULTIPLICATION
Inner Multiplication means to support or heal. Outer Multiplication means to unfold, grow, blossom.
Perhaps a good way to think of Inner Multiplication is, when one increases the density of something, the unit itself is reinforced, supported, or strengthened. When something multiplies (in the basic arithmetical or duplicating sense used to teach kids the skill of multiplication) as does Outer Multiplication, the individual unit doesn't strengthen.
Inner & Outer PROJECTION
Inner Projection means to project toward or receive. Outer Projection means project away from (infinitely).
This one is like sight. When light enters the eye, lights is travelling towards the self. However, the span of one's eyesight *can* be viewed as beginning at one's self and extending outward.
Inner & Outer ENCOMPASSMENT
Inner Encompassment means to push outward, or expand from the inside. Outer Encompassment means to engulf, or expand from the outside.
(This duality reminds me of Chris Langan's notion of conspansive duality.)
Inner & Outer COMPLETION
Inner Completion means upright or virtuous. Outer Completion means sturdy.
The distinction here seems more superficial than the others, perhaps because it seems more idealistic than mathematical. Nevertheless it is part of the set, and looks can be deceiving. Maybe the usefulness of this distinction will become more apparent after getting into the swing of applying the letters to quantum wave streaming. If for no other reason, it might serve to keep the ubiquitous observer-object relationship intact. While I intend to use all 27 letters for the time being, feel free to include or exclude this last one based on preference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the scrupulous individual might have noticed that there evidently is a general redundancy at play. That is, that the nine archetypes is mostly set in pairs, or mirroring from the end backwards as it proceeds alphabetically, or reverse alphabetically from the beginning forward.
All, Difference, Action, Division, Connection, Multiplication, Projection, Encompassment, Completion
All pairs with Completion
Difference with Encompassment
Action with Projection
Division with Multiplication
Connection by its lonesome.
The design might be a process among the archetypes, leading from the undifferentiated to the differentiated but unified, with Connection being a bridge or connection on a self-referential level between the first and last 4. It's possible the redundancy serves to relate to the hierarchical nature of information and reality.
In any case, there needs to be some justification (besides versatility and considerations for frame of reference) to prevent anyone concerned with simplicity from pruning the alphabet down to the original 9, or even only the latter 18 without the first 9. The most cogent justification I've found so far says (in so many words) that All - Division are analytic functions and Multiplication - Complete are synthetic functions. This would make sense if the script was also used as a creation narrative by mystics.
You see, the analytic/synthetic divide is based on the nature of the action and the inner/outer divide is based on perspective. The relationship between analytic/synthetic divide and the inner/outer divide is the nature of an act from differing perspectives.
Take the inflation of a balloon. An inflated balloon, which consists of the balloon and the gases therein, has certain cause and effect dynamic which depends on perspective. The balloon is inflated to the opposition of the sum of contracting forces of the balloon's material which would expel or compress the gases if it weren't for the gases' overpowering force. As it concerns this simplified example, there are two forces and two agents upon which the two forces act.
From the perspective of the balloon, we are the cause of the contraction and effect of the expansion. From the perspective of all the gases in the balloon, we are the cause of the expansion and the effect of the contraction. Though, mind you, we were crossing identities in one sense (Inner/Outer), we were deconstructing and constructing in another (analytic/synthetic). This example might be used to analogize the distinction between Inner & Outer Difference and Inner & Outer Projection, by the way.
One is free to permanently adopt a reduction of this system, a subset of the characters - maybe the first 9 or latter 18. I think Relational Frame Theorists might be working with a "dumbed-down" set. But the alterations to one's ability to analyze by internalizing all 27 ideas will likely dwarf those reaped by any reduced system. It may help to ease into the system slowly, taking the integration of the 27 ideas in small steps, rather than one bold, gigantic leap.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And without further ado, an alphabetized correspondence of the alphabet and the mathematical ideas described above.
(Transliterations per Wikipedia)
alef - ALL yod - INNER ALL qof - OUTER ALL
bet - DIFFERENCE kaf - INNER DIFFERENCE resh - OUTER DIFFERENCE
gimel - ACTION lamed - INNER ACTION shin - OUTER ACTION
dalet - DIVISION mem - INNER DIVISION tav - OUTER DIVISION
he - CONNECTION nun - INNER CONNECTION kaf (final) - OUTER CONNECTION
vav - MULTIPLICATION samekh - INNER MULTIPLICATION mem (final) - OUTER MULTIPLICATION
zayin - PROJECTION ayin - INNER PROJECTION nun (final) - OUTER PROJECTION
het - ENCOMPASSMENT pe - INNER ENCOMPASSMENT pe (final) - OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT
tet - COMPLETION tsadi - INNER COMPLETION tsadi (final) - OUTER COMPLETION
And links to resources containing the paleo-Hebrew and Hebrew translations and literal meanings of these Hebrew to English transliterations:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html
http://www.meru.org/letteressays/letterindex.html
Despite some obvious differences between the meanings given for the two sources, the above - which is loosely based on the scheme from meru.org - captures the universal concepts best relating to the sum of the translations between the various (named and unnamed) resources used. Also, it resembles the ontological concepts employed by some applications of frame relational theory training, including the one from this study which saw I.Q. score improvements in the 1-2 SD range in such a short time frame:
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&context=tpr
(The "more than/less than" concept in the study isn't explicit in the Jewish script alone, to my knowledge, though it's easily deduced thereby implicitly. That concept can be added with relative ease by the individual, if so desired, along with something to represent the laws of transitivity, symmetry, etc.)
I'll begin piloting the so-inspired variant of quantum wave streaming, perhaps starting this week, after I've committed everything to memory and can effortlessly recall the entire script in all sorts of random order. :P Because I anticipate being a.f.k. in a day or so for weeks to follow, I'll sporadically update with progress when able (as time and Internet access permits), and encourage anyone who dares attempt to undertake this most ambitious (and maybe Sisyphean?) exercise in reasoning to eventually do the same.
Also, pointers and suggestions to improve the aforementioned system are greatly appreciated. Seriously. :)
Good luck out there!
--Brandon
freeurownmind-lookfornothingelse
Jan 12, 2015, 10:12:42 PM1/12/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
She will Fly because She is Born
Jan 13, 2015, 7:28:47 AM1/13/15
to
Brandon,
What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?
How about as they pertain to the following:
Sam Harris - Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk
How about as they pertain to the following:
Sam Harris - Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk
(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)
How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a psychologically therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?
This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:
"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".
"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".
So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.
Thank you, Brandon
Brandon Woodson
Jan 13, 2015, 1:23:34 PM1/13/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
http://quizlet.com/47687727/categories-transliterations-flash-cards/
I forgot about that study list. Thank you for posting it.
I forgot about that study list. Thank you for posting it.
>"What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?
How about as they pertain to the following:
Sam Harris - Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk
(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)
How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?"
Those are good questions. I'll take a few days to mull it over. I already detect apparent flaws in Harris' argument, but I haven't yet (satisfactorily) fleshed out details of his argument and my own thoughts to articulate the points and counterpoints into harmony.
>"This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:
'Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)'."
I recall that I intended the (believed) statement of interest to mean that self-awareness in the context of intelligence defined as "the ability to differentiate" must come first. One needs a frame of reference, a perspective from which to differentiate. A frame of reference with minimal intelligence might exist anoetically (though I doubt it is possible for anything to exist without any intelligence whatsoever), but manifest intelligence without frame of reference (not necessarily of the human cognitive variety) is absurd.
>"Thank you, Brandon"
Thank you for the provocative dialog.
--Brandon
>"Thank you, Brandon"
Thank you for the provocative dialog.
--Brandon
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:28 AM, She will Fly because She is Born <daniel.artis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brandon,What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?
How about as they pertain to the following:
Sam Harris - Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)
How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?
This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:
"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.Thank you, Brandon
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Brandon Woodson
Jan 16, 2015, 6:54:35 PM1/16/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I planned to postpone commenting on Harris' position before I could get to a bookstore, read a copy of Free Will, and fully understand it. But since that isn't likely to happen until later this weekend, I'll deliver a few thoughts on the subject in the meanwhile.
It's my understanding from online reviews that Harris doesn't attempt to define "free will", and perhaps this is for good reason: a theoretically relevant notion of freedom would almost assuredly be wholly gradient, and definitive efforts to demarcate compatibilist free will along a graded scale might be considered arbitrary, and subsequently besieged for its subjectivity.
Incompatibilist strands of free will and determinism, which could be functionally defined as "absolute freedom" and "absolute restriction" (respectively), are non-sensical and fall to the simplest reasoning.
Absolute restriction can't work because incompatibilist determinism claims inevitability of outcome, that each cause could have no other effect. Everything in an absolutely deterministic universe, therefore, is absolutely structured. But action (or every instance of cause and effect) is change, and there is nothing changeable in what has no freedom. Variance is unstructured on an object level; structured on a meta-level.
Absolute freedom, or incompatibilist free will, is similarly puerile, just conversely. I think among the most risible and ironic implications of hypothetically negating constraint is that now perception is dead. (The freest so happens to be the most imperceptive too!)
You could liken the conundrum achieved by either too much or too little freedom to that of a universe with only variant or only invariant qualities.
Call it Panglossian - but my tentative position is compatibilist and that freedom is stratified (in a certain sense, by intelligence, human and non-human) out of logical necessity.
--Brandon
It's my understanding from online reviews that Harris doesn't attempt to define "free will", and perhaps this is for good reason: a theoretically relevant notion of freedom would almost assuredly be wholly gradient, and definitive efforts to demarcate compatibilist free will along a graded scale might be considered arbitrary, and subsequently besieged for its subjectivity.
Incompatibilist strands of free will and determinism, which could be functionally defined as "absolute freedom" and "absolute restriction" (respectively), are non-sensical and fall to the simplest reasoning.
Absolute restriction can't work because incompatibilist determinism claims inevitability of outcome, that each cause could have no other effect. Everything in an absolutely deterministic universe, therefore, is absolutely structured. But action (or every instance of cause and effect) is change, and there is nothing changeable in what has no freedom. Variance is unstructured on an object level; structured on a meta-level.
Absolute freedom, or incompatibilist free will, is similarly puerile, just conversely. I think among the most risible and ironic implications of hypothetically negating constraint is that now perception is dead. (The freest so happens to be the most imperceptive too!)
You could liken the conundrum achieved by either too much or too little freedom to that of a universe with only variant or only invariant qualities.
Call it Panglossian - but my tentative position is compatibilist and that freedom is stratified (in a certain sense, by intelligence, human and non-human) out of logical necessity.
--Brandon
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:28 AM, She will Fly because She is Born <daniel.artis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brandon,What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?
How about as they pertain to the following:
Sam Harris - Free Will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:
"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.Thank you, Brandon
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:
--
She will Fly because She is Born
Feb 11, 2015, 1:28:55 AM2/11/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I appreciate your thoughts very much Brandon, thank you.
Ha ha, my mental light dimmer is certainly still rotating around on this one (free will)! I must reserve more time on the matter actually, which moves me to now mention something else that I'd like to focus more deeply on first, the subject at hand as it pertains to the implementation of ontological categories in the thought streaming process.
Would you be at all obliged to give an example of each ontological category in relation to how they might be applied to a single VISUAL “thought stream", as well as how you would be mentally interacting with the VISUAL stimuli within the assigned ontological category? How about the other senses? Hmm... I wonder how this might work with feelings?
Firstly this might be from the perspective of ontological category to the manifestation of (a) certain (array of) stimuli, and then secondly, the spontaneous manifestation of stimuli to (the appropriate allocation of) ontological category, at least it pertains to the actions involved during the phase of streaming interruptive thought (impeding on the attempted external descriptions). I (inner all) mentioned (outer action) both (outer all (?)) sides (difference) to provoke (inner projection) clarity (difference (?)).
If you're able to accomplish this lofty task I will certainly respond again with my own thought streaming examples to hopefully provide others with more coins to put in their mental slot machine here to win greater understanding and most importantly, application.
I anticipate more questions from myself in terms of how to work all of these various (higher) seasons and (lower (subset)) weather patterns but overall I shall do my best to avoid unnecessary questions through my own deduction, which you yourself can correct if I happen to mention something inaccurate.
Otherwise, do you have a resource you would like to share pertaining to:
"Cybernetic Transposition is a remarkable tool to affect belief, and it works quite well. After having used it, image streaming is so much more tolerable." - Brandon
Take care
She will Fly because She is Born
Feb 11, 2015, 2:02:49 AM2/11/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
* VISUAL “thought stream":
As it applies to a non man-made scene, for example, perhaps either the internally or externally derived representation of a robust nature (birds, trees, grasslands, rocks, water and so on) scene. :)
As it applies to a non man-made scene, for example, perhaps either the internally or externally derived representation of a robust nature (birds, trees, grasslands, rocks, water and so on) scene. :)
Brandon Woodson
Feb 13, 2015, 6:51:12 PM2/13/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
"Would you be at all obliged to give an example of each ontological category in relation to how they might be applied to a single VISUAL “thought stream", as well as how you would be mentally interacting with the VISUAL stimuli within the assigned ontological category?"
Sure. The first visual that came to mind was that of an artist sculpting art, so let's use that.
The sculpting process will be a transformation of a piece of material - let's say, marble - from its unrefined state to a work of art.
We start by examining our marble slab (ALL). We know that, despite the present coarse and unrefined general appearance of the material (INNER ALL), beneath that exterior awaits a beautiful work of art, whose features we only need freeing from their marble prison. We consider for a moment this is only possible because what we see on even the smallest scale by the naked eye is, too, marble (OUTER ALL). They, quite tautologically, are one and the same (ALL).
Satisfied with the quality of our raw material, we envision the finished product, our mental template, so as to begin. And we begin to think about what (DIFFERENCE) the slab needs to undergo. (Lkie mnay porcseses, waht matetrs msot is percpetoin of bgenining and end; mdidle is soemtiems nelgilbe.) There are many ways from raw marble (INNER DIFFERENCE) to finished product (OUTER DIFFERENCE), and we can pick as long as we keep a constant idea of where we're going (DIFFERENCE).
With one final review of the plan, we commence (ACTION). Painstakingly, we etch (OUTER ACTION) the first details into our marble, which receives new shape (INNER ACTION) by our efforts.
What begins as a mere incision (OUTER DIVISION) gives way to distinguishable features, salient from (INNER DIVISION) what it contrasts. Many noticeable features (DIVISION) emerge as this continues.
We are careful not to add any excessive marks, for that could ruin the entire work. After all, it is through continuity (INNER CONNECTION) that the etchings (OUTER CONNECTION) have any visual effect. We gauge where each mark should be placed by gestalts (CONNECTION) of various scope.
We note how varied in depth some of the etchings are, how small etchings grow (MULTIPLICATION) through repeated strikes from our chisel. At once, each space is expanding w.r.t. smooth surfaces (INNER MULTIPLICATION), the contrasting material in which the empty space is nested, and w.r.t. itself (OUTER MULTIPLICATION). In other words, the marks grow both from (perspectives emphasizing) the marks and that which is marked simultaneously.
This business of heavy indentions, of light indentions, of depth, remind us of how fragile, how interdependent the small effects are. It's really a matter of numerosity (PROJECTION)!
We pause from our unfinished work and further ponder for a moment, "Where does the depth begin? Where does it end?". Following the newly placed contours with our eyes, we reasoning, "What is a gradient change in depth (PROJECTION) anywhere on a gradient scale *seems* to be either becoming (infinitesimally (INNER MULTIPLICATION) or infinitely (OUTER MULTIPLICATION) ) smaller or larger. No matter which we decide, smaller or larger, that change is paralleled by a steady change of some sort in the opposite direction as well; the pair of opposing PROJECTIONS must both become smaller (INNER PROJECTION) and larger (OUTER PROJECTION) as a necessary consequence of intelligence ( differentiation). If (with change) the stone is becoming deeper, then the "empty" space against which we compare it must become more shallow. If the stone, more shallow, then vice versa. We finally resolve that the depth begins at the extremities of both contrasts, and therefore projects in both directions simultaneously, even as we visually trace in one relatively straight direction.
(See diagram below: *)
We resume sculpting, deriving much pleasure from simply being in the moment. Our thoughts consume (INNER ENCOMPASSMENT) the nearly completed sculpture, and the sculpture is consumed by our attention (OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT).
At last, we inspect our work. We consider that it is neither deficient in any desirable attribute (INNER COMPLETION) nor superfluous in any of the same (OUTER COMPLETION), that it is perfect (COMPLETION), rational (COMPLETION), and beautiful (COMPLETION).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the example requested was three-part: a.) how ontological categories are applied in a single visual thought stream of non-logical (or partially logical) objects; b.) how ontological categories apply to other human senses; and c.) how ontological categories apply to emotions.
I think the above is an example of a.). One can create an non-ordinary visual and attach significance. The whole (ALL) of that visual can then be subjected to logical operations, such as thought streaming. In fact, most visuals (e.g., letters of the alphabet or natural numbers) are non-ordinary visual objects which were at some point adopted as ordinary visuals. The same can be done for any visual imaginable since all logical systems defer on a most fundamental level to empiricism, as does empiricism to logical systems.
The content addressed by b.), I analyze only to the extent possible.
As I do with that by c.), which can be analyzed because emotions are emergent phenomena it seems. They are resultant from games and considerations, which can be, and I often do, analyze. Also, certain aspects of emotions such as somatic localization are also amenable to a much smaller degree to thought streaming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sculpting process will be a transformation of a piece of material - let's say, marble - from its unrefined state to a work of art.
We start by examining our marble slab (ALL). We know that, despite the present coarse and unrefined general appearance of the material (INNER ALL), beneath that exterior awaits a beautiful work of art, whose features we only need freeing from their marble prison. We consider for a moment this is only possible because what we see on even the smallest scale by the naked eye is, too, marble (OUTER ALL). They, quite tautologically, are one and the same (ALL).
Satisfied with the quality of our raw material, we envision the finished product, our mental template, so as to begin. And we begin to think about what (DIFFERENCE) the slab needs to undergo. (Lkie mnay porcseses, waht matetrs msot is percpetoin of bgenining and end; mdidle is soemtiems nelgilbe.) There are many ways from raw marble (INNER DIFFERENCE) to finished product (OUTER DIFFERENCE), and we can pick as long as we keep a constant idea of where we're going (DIFFERENCE).
With one final review of the plan, we commence (ACTION). Painstakingly, we etch (OUTER ACTION) the first details into our marble, which receives new shape (INNER ACTION) by our efforts.
What begins as a mere incision (OUTER DIVISION) gives way to distinguishable features, salient from (INNER DIVISION) what it contrasts. Many noticeable features (DIVISION) emerge as this continues.
We are careful not to add any excessive marks, for that could ruin the entire work. After all, it is through continuity (INNER CONNECTION) that the etchings (OUTER CONNECTION) have any visual effect. We gauge where each mark should be placed by gestalts (CONNECTION) of various scope.
We note how varied in depth some of the etchings are, how small etchings grow (MULTIPLICATION) through repeated strikes from our chisel. At once, each space is expanding w.r.t. smooth surfaces (INNER MULTIPLICATION), the contrasting material in which the empty space is nested, and w.r.t. itself (OUTER MULTIPLICATION). In other words, the marks grow both from (perspectives emphasizing) the marks and that which is marked simultaneously.
This business of heavy indentions, of light indentions, of depth, remind us of how fragile, how interdependent the small effects are. It's really a matter of numerosity (PROJECTION)!
We pause from our unfinished work and further ponder for a moment, "Where does the depth begin? Where does it end?". Following the newly placed contours with our eyes, we reasoning, "What is a gradient change in depth (PROJECTION) anywhere on a gradient scale *seems* to be either becoming (infinitesimally (INNER MULTIPLICATION) or infinitely (OUTER MULTIPLICATION) ) smaller or larger. No matter which we decide, smaller or larger, that change is paralleled by a steady change of some sort in the opposite direction as well; the pair of opposing PROJECTIONS must both become smaller (INNER PROJECTION) and larger (OUTER PROJECTION) as a necessary consequence of intelligence ( differentiation). If (with change) the stone is becoming deeper, then the "empty" space against which we compare it must become more shallow. If the stone, more shallow, then vice versa. We finally resolve that the depth begins at the extremities of both contrasts, and therefore projects in both directions simultaneously, even as we visually trace in one relatively straight direction.
(See diagram below: *)
We resume sculpting, deriving much pleasure from simply being in the moment. Our thoughts consume (INNER ENCOMPASSMENT) the nearly completed sculpture, and the sculpture is consumed by our attention (OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT).
At last, we inspect our work. We consider that it is neither deficient in any desirable attribute (INNER COMPLETION) nor superfluous in any of the same (OUTER COMPLETION), that it is perfect (COMPLETION), rational (COMPLETION), and beautiful (COMPLETION).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the example requested was three-part: a.) how ontological categories are applied in a single visual thought stream of non-logical (or partially logical) objects; b.) how ontological categories apply to other human senses; and c.) how ontological categories apply to emotions.
I think the above is an example of a.). One can create an non-ordinary visual and attach significance. The whole (ALL) of that visual can then be subjected to logical operations, such as thought streaming. In fact, most visuals (e.g., letters of the alphabet or natural numbers) are non-ordinary visual objects which were at some point adopted as ordinary visuals. The same can be done for any visual imaginable since all logical systems defer on a most fundamental level to empiricism, as does empiricism to logical systems.
The content addressed by b.), I analyze only to the extent possible.
As I do with that by c.), which can be analyzed because emotions are emergent phenomena it seems. They are resultant from games and considerations, which can be, and I often do, analyze. Also, certain aspects of emotions such as somatic localization are also amenable to a much smaller degree to thought streaming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Firstly this might be from the perspective of ontological category to the manifestation of (a) certain (array of) stimuli, and then secondly, the spontaneous manifestation of stimuli to (the appropriate allocation of) ontological category, at least it pertains to the actions involved during the phase of streaming interruptive thought (impeding on the attempted external descriptions). I (inner all) mentioned (outer action) both (outer all (?)) sides (difference) to provoke (inner projection) clarity (difference (?))."
This is pretty solid. I would only replace the last category with DIVISION (or some sort) since clarity often requires a transcendence of mere differentiation to overview of those differences as objects themselves from a global perspective.
Also, in practice, not writing, I would strive for a certain parity (i.e., INNER, OUTER, and ARCHETYPAL of any applied category juxtaposed rather than INNER or OUTER in isolation) which I will admit might be difficult (if not impossible) to fully capture with writing. It's easier to shift between the three levels in thought than convey in ordinary language mental shifts between the three levels for *everything* conveyed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're able to accomplish this lofty task I will certainly respond again with my own thought streaming examples to hopefully provide others with more coins to put in their mental slot machine here to win greater understanding and most importantly, application."
I look forward to more examples. And thank you for providing them for intentions of interpersonal edification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I anticipate more questions from myself in terms of how to work all of these various (higher) seasons and (lower (subset)) weather patterns but overall I shall do my best to avoid unnecessary questions through my own deduction, which you yourself can correct if I happen to mention something inaccurate."
No, I don't mind questions which clarify. You seem intelligent, so if you have a question, seemingly unnecessary or not, it is probably a good one. Since my analysis of what needs explanation probably won't cover everything, questions point out blind spots.
And feel free to do the same for my inaccuracies. We aren't dealing with cute little I.Q. test puzzles, so I'm bound to make them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental to any quoted section, but owed discussion:
As I am sure you've already noticed, many concepts overlap greatly depending on what you wish to emphasize. The same negative portion of a sculpture etching (i.e., the area absent of marble) which was sometimes OUTER DIFFERENCE was also sometimes INNER CONNECTION between the positive portion of the very same etching. Any given visual representation is often represented pluralistically by several categories at once.
Actually, this entire endeavor could have focused on a single sentence or even a single word. But had we wrapped up this description in so little, the examples of the categories might have seemed too similar to clearly differentiate.
Of course, in personal thought streaming sessions, communicability beyond one's self isn't necessary nor so limiting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I anticipate more questions from myself in terms of how to work all of these various (higher) seasons and (lower (subset)) weather patterns but overall I shall do my best to avoid unnecessary questions through my own deduction, which you yourself can correct if I happen to mention something inaccurate."
No, I don't mind questions which clarify. You seem intelligent, so if you have a question, seemingly unnecessary or not, it is probably a good one. Since my analysis of what needs explanation probably won't cover everything, questions point out blind spots.
And feel free to do the same for my inaccuracies. We aren't dealing with cute little I.Q. test puzzles, so I'm bound to make them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental to any quoted section, but owed discussion:
As I am sure you've already noticed, many concepts overlap greatly depending on what you wish to emphasize. The same negative portion of a sculpture etching (i.e., the area absent of marble) which was sometimes OUTER DIFFERENCE was also sometimes INNER CONNECTION between the positive portion of the very same etching. Any given visual representation is often represented pluralistically by several categories at once.
Actually, this entire endeavor could have focused on a single sentence or even a single word. But had we wrapped up this description in so little, the examples of the categories might have seemed too similar to clearly differentiate.
Of course, in personal thought streaming sessions, communicability beyond one's self isn't necessary nor so limiting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Otherwise, do you have a resource you would like to share pertaining to:
"Cybernetic Transposition is a remarkable tool to affect belief, and it works quite well. After having used it, image streaming is so much more tolerable." - Brandon"
Here is a link to the e-book (I don't recall if I posted a link before):
http://www.eminimoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Money-Fast.pdf
Directed visualization for goal achievement is extremely useful, though far from a novelty:
http://expertenough.com/1898/visualization-works
Cybernetic Transposition takes some theory of this phenomenon, whose explanations range from fantastic to ordinary, and develops them into organized practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) PROJECTION Diagram:
High marble (relative to) |-------------------------------------------| Low marble
Change by visual scan ------------------------------------------->
Increase in space from high to low; decrease in space from low to high
With a change in direction of visual scan (reversed), decrease in space from low to high; increase from high to low.
Any projection has both, even one travelling in a single direction; hence the INNER & OUTER PROJECTION duality, or singularly, PROJECTION.
This is true for all purely abstract concepts represented isomorphically by PROJECTION (e.g., continuous numbers as pure noumena everywhere vs. numbers illustrated by a number line)
The questions to ask are "if [insert quality or quantity] is continuously increasing or decreasing, how do I know? What must be (comparatively) decreasing or increasing?"
I'm reminded of the quote:
"Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference." - Einstein
And speaking of which, and not the least bit germane, I "ran across" this page with "chicken crossing the road" commentary, which I found pretty humorous:
http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt
--Brandon
http://www.eminimoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Money-Fast.pdf
Directed visualization for goal achievement is extremely useful, though far from a novelty:
http://expertenough.com/1898/visualization-works
Cybernetic Transposition takes some theory of this phenomenon, whose explanations range from fantastic to ordinary, and develops them into organized practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) PROJECTION Diagram:
High marble (relative to) |-------------------------------------------| Low marble
Change by visual scan ------------------------------------------->
Increase in space from high to low; decrease in space from low to high
With a change in direction of visual scan (reversed), decrease in space from low to high; increase from high to low.
Any projection has both, even one travelling in a single direction; hence the INNER & OUTER PROJECTION duality, or singularly, PROJECTION.
This is true for all purely abstract concepts represented isomorphically by PROJECTION (e.g., continuous numbers as pure noumena everywhere vs. numbers illustrated by a number line)
The questions to ask are "if [insert quality or quantity] is continuously increasing or decreasing, how do I know? What must be (comparatively) decreasing or increasing?"
I'm reminded of the quote:
"Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference." - Einstein
And speaking of which, and not the least bit germane, I "ran across" this page with "chicken crossing the road" commentary, which I found pretty humorous:
http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt
--Brandon
Brandon Woodson
Feb 13, 2015, 6:52:02 PM2/13/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
She will Fly because She is Born
Mar 9, 2015, 6:01:29 AM3/9/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
If anyone would like to read about any more examples please hop on your internet bus and take a trip down to the following depot!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/788741021179122/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/788741021179122/
Don't forget to bring your ticket, which is your enthusiasm, curiosity and willingness to explore the unknown!
Harry
Jun 23, 2015, 6:58:38 PM6/23/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
What can these "categories" be used for?
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:
Brandon Woodson
Jun 23, 2015, 10:16:06 PM6/23/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I'll answer in two ways.
Firstly, intrinsically, they are the source of all concepts, all thoughts, and all perceptions. They have virtually boundless utility apropos cognition because there is no cognition without them. If you can describe something, it will necessarily be described in terms of these categories.
Secondly, extrinsically, they can be used for almost anything with a linguistic character. I use "linguistic" very broadly here to describe anything which involves transmission, the act of sending something from one place to another (often with a particular objective). More narrowly, I use them to thought stream, which is simply a method of analysis which I believe has great import and practical benefit.
--Brandon
--
Harry
Jun 26, 2015, 5:14:17 AM6/26/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Are you give more examples of connection and completion?
And this archetypal thingy, what's that?
What do you mean by spiritual or manifest? Is spiritual even a something?
Brandon Woodson
Jun 26, 2015, 1:53:08 PM6/26/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
> "Are you give more examples of connection and completion?"
Connection:
Con (OUTER CONNECTION) + nec (INNER CONNECTION) + tion (OUTER CONNECTION)
ante meridiem, a.m. (OUTER CONNECTION) + meridiem, noon (INNER CONNECTION) + post meridiem, p.m. (OUTER CONNECTION)
Anything that serves as a bridge, nexus, center, or medium is usually INNER CONNECTION; whatever is connected via the instantiated INNER CONNECTION is OUTER CONNECTION.
Completion:
For a complete set of only integers 1 - 5:
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) would meet INNER COMPLETION, which can be thought of as satisfying a lower bound condition, but not OUTER COMPLETION; (1, 2, 3, 5) would meet OUTER COMPLETION, like satisfying an upper bound condition, but not INNER COMPLETION. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) would have INNER and OUTER COMPLETION.
The classic children's story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, carries this theme throughout and bears (pun unintended) additional tangible examples of COMPLETION.
> "And this archetypal thingy, what's that?"
None of the categories are observable (as objects) without duality. Where you'll find an INNER category, you'll always find a balancing OUTER category. The archetypal level represents the unitary aspect of two counterpoised categories, which cannot be observed directly, only through duality.
> "What do you mean by spiritual or manifest? Is spiritual even a something?"
It's irrelevant for application of the categories. But for a bit of history, these categories were presumably used as tools for religion. It's only expected, considering the categories' luminosity in early (and even modern) times of metaphysical benightedness and their incredible ubiquity, that they might be regarded as holy or sacred.
-----------------------------------------------
I should note: these examples are only approximations of the meanings of these categories, which cannot be perfectly delineated since none (as a singular INNER - OUTER - ARCHETYPAL set) can be described perfectly with language.
One not-so-technical reason is the meanings build progressively.
To clarify:
ALL both exists everywhere but cannot be perceived in unity since it both precedes all of the other categories (i.e., ALL, DIFFERENCE, and ACTION, etc. are actually (ALL) ALL, (ALL) DIFFERENCE, (ALL) ACTION, etc., respectively) and, alone, ALL has no perceivable qualities by which we can differentiate.
DIFFERENCE cannot be perceived without a common medium. So all DIFFERENCE would look something like (ALL) DIFFERENCE *and* utterly depend on ALL for intelligibility, as would all of the proceeding categories depend on DIFFERENCE.
That is:
DIFFERENCE on ALL
ACTION on ALL and DIFFERENCE.
DIVISION on ALL, DIFFERENCE, and ACTION.
And so on until (ALL) COMPLETION, which implies all 27 categories simultaneously.
The reverse sequence appears true as well (i.e., ALL -> COMPLETION inheres in each and every iteration of ALL)
Truly, the Infinite exists in everything.
I say this to convey that quick explanation in writing isn't enough for proper instruction; much direct experience in handling these categories is crucial to truly KNOWING them. This can only be achieved by doing.
--Brandon
jotaro
Jun 26, 2015, 4:42:23 PM6/26/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
brandon i dont know about other people, but when i read about the ontological categories i have no idea what you are talking about.
well i have very vague sense but. i am blind to the usefulness you see in this.
do you still image stream or you do just thought stream purely?
well thought stream could be refereed as upgraded image stream.
i mean why do you use those categories? whats the point? what do u get out of them as opposed you dont when you dont use them?
--Brandon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
Harry
Jun 26, 2015, 8:56:31 PM6/26/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
"Anything that serves as a bridge, nexus, center, or medium is usually INNER CONNECTION; whatever is connected via the instantiated INNER CONNECTION is OUTER CONNECTION"
Examples? Could you also use INNER and OUTER COMPLETION in the example?
"This can only be achieved by doing."
Can you do it and give an example then? I see the definitions but its like someone has been given a bunch of medical terms without proper details and has been asked to use them to label the diagram of a skeleton. It's tough going!
By the way the medical mantra is "See One, Do One, Teach One".
I need to see more!
Shoh
Jun 27, 2015, 12:37:23 AM6/27/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Brandon
The second part of your comment in your last reply is very enlightening (fascinating) and made inter relationships (connection) between ontological categories very clear; it built inner connection (medium) with outer connections ( different ontological categories - objects). So far, only intra relationships within ontological category - inner/outer/archetypal connection made sense to me.
I am very curious if you were able to develop inter relationship within ontological categories in your first thought ontological categories streaming session - was it clear to you from the very beginning? Or such kind of high level abstract relationships, did you acquire slowly gradually by learning and applying ontological categories?
I am also very interested in your progress with ontological categories - do you think your logic/abstraction/differentiation/intelligence abilities improved and if they did so, to what extent from insignificant to vast improvement (Though, I knew reading from your previous posts, your intelligence is already very high)
My most intriguing questions among all - did you develop and incorporate new ontological categories into existing set or do you plan to do so in the future? Did you notice/discover any new thing pertaining to existing ontological categories and if you did could you share them with us too?
Thanks a lot Brandon for your all contribution in this group!
Brandon Woodson
Jun 28, 2015, 2:49:26 PM6/28/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Were you looking for more examples of INNER and OUTER CONNECTION or INNER and OUTER COMPLETION? (I noticed the question about COMPLETION followed a quoted section on CONNECTION) Better yet, would it help if I made some comparisons between CONNECTION and COMPLETION?
CONNECTION is more generic than COMPLETION and is implied in COMPLETION, as it is in MULTIPLICATION, PROJECTION, and ENCOMPASSMENT. CONNECTION also relates the more linear categories (i.e., DIFFERENCE, ACTION, DIVISION) before it to the more dimensional categories (MULTIPLICATION and on) after it.
More succinctly, COMPLETION has inherent numerical elements, continuity, and containment; CONNECTION can, but doesn't necessarily, involve any of those properties.
"Perfection", "accuracy", "greater than", "less than" are all closely related to COMPLETION.
Some additional COMPLETION examples are:
Proper inflation for tires on a vehicle is COMPLETION. Sufficiently high inflation could be considered INNER COMPLETION; sufficiently low inflation, OUTER COMPLETION.
The temperature range suitable for human life is another COMPLETION. Sufficiently high temperatures (INNER COMPLETION) and sufficiently low temperatures (OUTER COMPLETION) are needed.
I hope these help!
--Brandon
--
Brandon Woodson
Jun 28, 2015, 2:55:29 PM6/28/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Thank you. I'm glad it's helped clarify. It's ironic because a secret to using the categories effectively to differentiate anything else is first differentiating between the categories themselves. Intelligent study of the categories perhaps paves the way to more intelligent thinking.
IIRC, I recognized some pattern between the categories but didn't articulate what seemed to be there until I started using the categories regularly.
Yes, certain high-level patterns emerge for me continuously, many of which I don't write out or preserve in any communicable form - though I probably should. They seem readily available nevertheless, as routinely I'll find myself contemplating something, only to have the quick flashes of relevant thought-streaming memories appear in mind to help fill in gaps. This helps expedite my reasoning tremendously.
Along with efforts in filtering for the other types of errors, thought streaming has started to remove a veil from my thinking. For starters, I've began to notice regularly when I am relying on System 1 thinking, which in comparison seems almost thoughtless.
I don't have any plans to expand the set since (to my understanding) any additions would merely be permutations of the enumerated categories. Though, as implied above, I think there are many useful high-level patterns, which one would expect should increase in simplicity as they increase in generality and applicability.
--Brandon
Hi
Jun 28, 2015, 11:50:09 PM6/28/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Hi Brandon,
Would be great to get your contribution to my latest post to the thread titled: "What game(s) would people most like?"
Kindly,
Hi
Hi
Jul 3, 2015, 2:52:13 AM7/3/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I've just realised that CONNECTION might actually be the most important category as it concerns humans and their relationship with and or to experience.
It's so fascinating. I might have just completely and maybe even permanently shifted my psychological relationship with experience, I can't be sure yet, I'll have to see how it runs its course overtime.
CONNECTION is to self/experiential connection (i.e. what's the energy behind the interaction (between oneself and their human experience (whatever gap is to be found "here"))?). It's something I'm still exploring, something that seems like a bridge (CONNECTION) to really living nonetheless.
Hi
Oct 20, 2015, 8:27:49 PM10/20/15
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
bump, just to remind the interest of everyone!
Hi
Nov 11, 2015, 10:38:16 AM11/11/15
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I find analysing all the different INNER/OUTER ENCOMPASSMENTS (among other) in this clip absolutely amazing.
Title: HD Tennis Women slow motion Dementieva Zvonareva Jankovic Azarenka Stosur
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Nov 17, 2015, 5:27:36 PM11/17/15
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Is anyone able to give a very concise explanation of what O.S. is, how it's conducted, and benefits?
Hi
Nov 21, 2015, 6:18:13 AM11/21/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
The information provided is plentiful for the curious and resilient, including those that wish to be resilient in the development of these qualities..
Brandon didn't explain everything, but for me that was an important part of my own learning process. If it was all laid out for me to easily infer then I wouldn't have made the insights that I have, nor would I have respected the teaching lesson, intended or not, as much as I did and do.
It's analogous to being stuck out in the wild and using a rough guide to get back home instead of a cognitively disabling GPS.
There's little to no lessons learned in the art of catching a bird when its wings are clipped, nor can any human truly appreciate flying if they haven't tried to build and or thoroughly learn what goes into flying not to mention the evolutions mankind has had to go through in order to reach this feat.
So in short I think there's potential for a lot of character building in the undertaking of the endeavour and its long term training.
Brain workshop is for sissies :P .
I might write up some more relatable guidelines but in light of the above I'm not quite yet sure how I will go about this.
Brandon Woodson
Nov 28, 2015, 11:17:20 AM11/28/15
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Fourth Deviation.
This is a write-up from March of this year, which is more concise:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/788741021179122?view=permalink&id=798243730228851
To all interested:
I agree my writing is sometimes highly discursive.
I'd be more than happy to further share my thoughts, or even collaborate on other efforts to make ontological/thought streaming more accessible to others, as time permits.
Best wishes!
--Brandon
Hi
Jan 22, 2016, 6:50:03 PM1/22/16
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Bump :)
Hi
Mar 5, 2016, 2:39:47 PM3/5/16
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Bump :) .
Thomas
Oct 17, 2017, 2:22:10 AM10/17/17
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Bump! :)
dominic lambert
Jul 23, 2022, 5:46:59 PM7/23/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Do you mean that different organisms have different levels of free will / "freedom"? And could you expand a bit more on what you mean by the word "compatibilist"?
Arnold Sicily
Aug 4, 2022, 9:58:39 PM8/4/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I believe what Brandon means by "compatibilist" is that determinism & free-will can be explored as 'compatible', i.e., free will & determinism are not mutually exclusive.
There is a difference between "free will" & "freedom". That is, the freedom to will something is not equivalent to the freedom to make a choice that reality adheres to. The difference is will vs. effect. What we will to happen is not always what happens.
Nonetheless, everything has free will.
The degree to which a thing has 'freedom' depends on their ability to solve problems that are obstacles to their choices having effect on reality.
In some ways, free will can act as a restriction on freedom if one wills the wrong decision - one that runs into problems & does not solve them.
The degree to which a thing has 'freedom' depends on their ability to solve problems that are obstacles to their choices having effect on reality.
In some ways, free will can act as a restriction on freedom if one wills the wrong decision - one that runs into problems & does not solve them.
Free will & freedom only work harmoniously to the degree one is capable of surpassing obstacles to freedom.
As for ontological categories, by sufficiently differentiating them, one correspondingly differentiates certain building blocks of language. In effect, language is further understood, and the individual is better able to articulate, understand & apply language. With greater effect of language, one may find it easier to understand 'self' in 'self-awareness' or otherwise to develop a more complex 'illusion of self'.
Arnold Sicily
Aug 4, 2022, 10:01:07 PM8/4/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Nonetheless, everything has free will
My apologies, this is not quite right. All *life* has free will, which cannot be divided into different levels.
My apologies, this is not quite right. All *life* has free will, which cannot be divided into different levels.
dominic lambert
Aug 5, 2022, 9:52:28 AM8/5/22
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Does this mean that free will is useless without freedom?
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/brain-training/gh5xgRRwVtc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/8a5f234f-4b6e-4cb1-af42-6a8cc3f1c095n%40googlegroups.com.
dominic lambert
Aug 5, 2022, 1:36:34 PM8/5/22
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Hence, compatibilism (determinism + free will coexisting) says that free will exists, but that free will has basically no effect?
Arnold Sicily
Aug 6, 2022, 6:16:21 AM8/6/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Brandon may disagree with my thoughts on this matter, including the last post. I am confident that is what he meant by 'compatibilist', but my other thoughts are largely based on similar inspirations to Brandon's - you can read his previous posts.
To answer your question, will can have various uses. For example, consider that responsibility is the willingness to admit cause / that you are the cause of something.
Arnold Sicily
Aug 9, 2022, 8:49:23 PM8/9/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Relational Frame Theory was initially an attempt to extend stimulus equivalence to relations other than equivalence.
Stimulus equivalence is exhibited when you have two symbols e.g. A, B, a psychological stimuli X, and a directly trained equivalence relation ('=' or 'same as') between A-X & between B-X. With stimulus equivalence, from the A-X & B-X equivalences, one is able to derive A-B is equivalent.
For example, the symbol 'cat' trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Another symbol is the sound *cat*, trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Stimulus equivalence is where after these trainings, the individual can says that the symbol for cat ('cat') & the sound for cat (*cat*) are equivalent.
Humans are the only animals that have substantially exhibited stimulus equivalence - i.e. the indirect training of a symbolic relation. Whilst other animals may outperform young infants in certain tests of cognition, humans greatly outperform all other animals with stimulus equivalence. In result, many began to postulate that stimulus equivalence was a necessary (and some would say sufficient) building block of language. Others would argue that stimulus equivalence was a result of language, rather than a building block. RFT however said that language was something that could be learnt by training the ability to derive these indirect symbolic relations - not to say other animals necessarily can learn it. The extension with RFT was introducing other indirectly trained symbolic relations, e.g. comparison (more/less than), coordination (same/opposite), difference, etc.
Ultimately, the evidence for RFT is in it's results - improved cognition as a result of training this ability to indirectly form these indirect symbolic relations. RFT is also very much in it's early days, and there are many questions it has yet to answer. You can read more here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jeab.733
Stimulus equivalence is exhibited when you have two symbols e.g. A, B, a psychological stimuli X, and a directly trained equivalence relation ('=' or 'same as') between A-X & between B-X. With stimulus equivalence, from the A-X & B-X equivalences, one is able to derive A-B is equivalent.
For example, the symbol 'cat' trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Another symbol is the sound *cat*, trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Stimulus equivalence is where after these trainings, the individual can says that the symbol for cat ('cat') & the sound for cat (*cat*) are equivalent.
Humans are the only animals that have substantially exhibited stimulus equivalence - i.e. the indirect training of a symbolic relation. Whilst other animals may outperform young infants in certain tests of cognition, humans greatly outperform all other animals with stimulus equivalence. In result, many began to postulate that stimulus equivalence was a necessary (and some would say sufficient) building block of language. Others would argue that stimulus equivalence was a result of language, rather than a building block. RFT however said that language was something that could be learnt by training the ability to derive these indirect symbolic relations - not to say other animals necessarily can learn it. The extension with RFT was introducing other indirectly trained symbolic relations, e.g. comparison (more/less than), coordination (same/opposite), difference, etc.
Ultimately, the evidence for RFT is in it's results - improved cognition as a result of training this ability to indirectly form these indirect symbolic relations. RFT is also very much in it's early days, and there are many questions it has yet to answer. You can read more here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jeab.733
To create a relational frame, there are a few characteristics required:
-Bidirectional (A --> B; B --> A)
-Combination (A --> B; B --> C; therefore, A --> C)
-Transformation of Stimuli: derivations of relations between symbols must transfer to the stimuli to which the symbols relate to
The ontological categories seem to have bidirectionality between Inner & Outer.
Then, they also seem to have some sort of combination, such as between analytic & synthetic. However, I think this idea needs further articulation & development.
The transformation of stimuli requires a deeper understanding of combination.
Now, I may be assuming that the categories are derivable. This assumption is based on the observation that the ontological categories seem to form a basis of language. We also need to differentiate language & intelligence. For example, there is the fact humans are uniquely intelligent at language, but not necessarily other tests of intelligence (examples include measures of complexity, or measures of short-term memory). I hope Brandon could come back to illuminate us as to his views on the matter.
-Bidirectional (A --> B; B --> A)
-Combination (A --> B; B --> C; therefore, A --> C)
-Transformation of Stimuli: derivations of relations between symbols must transfer to the stimuli to which the symbols relate to
The ontological categories seem to have bidirectionality between Inner & Outer.
Then, they also seem to have some sort of combination, such as between analytic & synthetic. However, I think this idea needs further articulation & development.
The transformation of stimuli requires a deeper understanding of combination.
Now, I may be assuming that the categories are derivable. This assumption is based on the observation that the ontological categories seem to form a basis of language. We also need to differentiate language & intelligence. For example, there is the fact humans are uniquely intelligent at language, but not necessarily other tests of intelligence (examples include measures of complexity, or measures of short-term memory). I hope Brandon could come back to illuminate us as to his views on the matter.
Arnold Sicily
Aug 15, 2022, 9:34:42 PM8/15/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Regarding the hierarchical recursive reflectivity of the ontological categories, I can try to connect them as such:
All = identity
the identification of all requires Difference
the identification of difference & all requires Division
All = identity
the identification of all requires Difference
the identification of difference & all requires Division
the identification of division requires Action
the identification of action requires Connection = duality
the identification of duality requires Multiplication
the identification of multiplication requires Projection = space
the identification of multiplication requires Projection = space
the identification of space requires Encompassment
the identification of encompassment requires Completion = All.
I'm sure that one could probably create another explanation different to mine, but potentially of similar or greater validity.
Samuel Kusa
Aug 25, 2022, 5:56:35 PM8/25/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
hey bro could you please explain further
Arnold Sicily
Aug 26, 2022, 9:31:53 PM8/26/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
All = " "
(All = " ") = difference to all
(All = " ") = difference to all
((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division
(((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action
((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection
(((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity
(((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity
((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection (to multiply is to project a space into which one is multiplying)
(((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection) = Encompassment (placing multiplicity in a space requires encompassment)
((((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection) = Encompassment) = Completion (encompassing encompassment is completion)
It might be easier to understand if you draw a picture that naturally begins with difference. The idea is that each concept requires the next to define it, like the evolution of language in CTMU. To define nothing you need something, which forms difference. To define difference you need division. To define division you need action, etc. ...
It might be easier to understand if you draw a picture that naturally begins with difference. The idea is that each concept requires the next to define it, like the evolution of language in CTMU. To define nothing you need something, which forms difference. To define difference you need division. To define division you need action, etc. ...
To me, these are just interesting ideas. I don't know currently know if there is genuinely any significance to them.
dominic lambert
Aug 31, 2022, 5:36:05 PM8/31/22
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Why do you need action to define division?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages