Cogito Meipso ut Existens: Much more appropriate in my humble opinion than Cogito Ergo Sum.

Cogito Meipso ut Existens   

Much more appropriate in my humble opinion than Cogito Ergo Sum.

Less definitive certainly, but possibly more defensible

I think Myself into Existence....is very different than "I think, but, I do not exist"

Are You Paying Attention?

Language. Unlimited? Possibly. Perfect? Not Likely.

Three Lefts don’t make a Right, but they do make a Square, and may even be potentially responsible for the genesis of Digitized Circles

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about little squares.  Little squares are easily constructed using very simple mathematics. If we agree( at least in the alien world of computer innards), that little squares, built by 0 and 1 constructors, are capable of manipulating sensory perception to such an extent that most people don't ever consider basic concepts like "curved is a sequence of straights".  "Arcs" are manifests of carefully arranged straight lines, with enough straight lines, we can create such a density of "straights", that Sensorially, we perceive what appear to be images that look nothing like squares or straight lines.

Do You Mind if Eye

 

If you are a virgin to this Blog, I suggest that you skip this entry, because as we all learned as kids “one of these things is not like the other..”

Breaking from Tradition( my own ), I am about to let the cat out of the box, and am naturally, and required to be, uncertain of cats ability to do much other than remain immobile, but a very famous Physicist said that much more scientifically that I have just, but this is no time for Science! This is a time for....well I guess science, but it’s a Left Brain-Right Brain death match, so unless you are Ambiceptual, you will only understand half of what you are about to see and read, so if you are cognitively out of balance, now is the time to phone-a-friend……

I find sometimes that the most complex, novel mashup of complex thoughts do not lend themselves well to classically accepted, academic prose. So here is a piece that I have written recently, that, if you have read at least some of the postings on this blog, will recognize is something of a tie that binds, or acts as something of a Meta-Conceptual-Abstract( MCA). An MCA of course provides descriptors for a concept(s), but in a way that is at least one layer of abstraction away from the topics under review. So, for the first time in the blog, I will put some stretch on your ability to conceptualize everything at once, and includes a picture, if you follow the link after the Analysis of the Verse.

Self Study: On the Seeming Paradox of Self-observation for the benefit Empirical Experimentation

Self-Study: On the Seeming Paradox of Self-observation for the benefit Empirical Experimentation Part I

So I set about the unsteadying of the gimbals, and set the journey to a natural state of bias in motion. Rather, I should say that I did this two days ago. Back now within the relative safety of that state from which I began the experiment. I will make a few comments here, now, and then have to follow up with a more thorough write-up (with pictures and video!) soon.

The Window of Cognitive Imbalance: On the thought that Cognition is a fully gimbaled physiological presence.

The Window of Cognitive Imbalance:  On the thought that Cognition is a fully gimbaled physiological presence.

Cognitive gimballing is only every in a “steady state” for finite periods of the time, and this should not to be confused with a state of rest.  The gimbals impact on True-bias can manifest at any of the gimbal point, creating destabilizing effects.  Depending the degree of destabilization, defined here to mean: the degree of bias away from what would ordinarily be referred to as a steady state, the degree of bias can have any number of cognitive impacts, which include an enhanced lucidity of the more ethereal considerations, and a chance opportunity, a Window possibly, to potentially capitalize on this degree of bias away from the norm, to intellectually explore thoughtful angles of subject meditation, which, without the in-place bias may or may not be:

1.       Noticed

2.       Seized

3.       Engaged

Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation:

Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation:

Same Words, Same Contexts: Different People, Different Reactions, Different Meanings

"You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down; you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?"**

When Time Stood Still: In consideration of spending time on discourse relating to matters that we cannot conclude.

When Time Stood Still:  In consideration of spending time on discourse relating to matters that we cannot conclude. 

I seem to have found a discussion where time has stopped.  Very refreshing because it means that I definitely cannot be wasting it and that I need not be concerned with the future.  Very rare conditions.  So with every assurance that I am not being wasteful, here are my Current, and Future thoughts on the subject.

Epic Seductions

Let me preface this posting by saying that things have gotten a bit serious lately in the pieces I have been authoring, so I thought I might interject a bit of relevant humor.  Usually I stick to Haikus, but this time I didn't.  If you are new to this Blog, please excuse my apologies, they are only representative of things I am not apologetic for, but feel obligated to apologize for anyway.  I'm sure you understand.  If not, please skip this entry and proceed to the next, which I promise is extremely serious.

What to Expect when you are Expecting: Debating Faith with the Faithful

What to Expect when you are Expecting:  Debating Faith with the Faithful

I suggest that the essence of god occurs to many people in many ways.  Here are a few:  I will not address Agnostic or Atheist for the moment:

How Do You Know?

How do You Know?

If you cannot articulate what you "know" and how you "know" it, then you do not understand the foundational Truth that is the underpinning of your claim of “knowingness”, and thus you really don't "know".

Truth Theorum

Truth Theorem?

1. Truth does not require Faith
2. Faith does not require Truth
3. Truth makes no demands
4. Faith makes many demands
5. One may be Faithful, but not Truthful
6. One may be Truthful, but not Faithful
7. Truths can have a profound impact on Faith
8. Faith cannot change Truth
9. If Truth is not known, Faith can be more powerful than Truth
10. If Truth is known, Faith can be more powerful than Truth
11. If Truth is known, then Truth is more infinite than Faith

If Truth can be known, and is more Infinite than Faith:  will Truth, or Faith be the greater Force among Men?

Definitions: The Self-Serving Lexicology of Formal Corporate Communications

Definitions:  The Self-Serving Lexicology of Formal Corporate Communications

An Anecdotal Case-Study concerning the Necessity of, and Consequences of not, achieving a Collective Understanding of Atomic Principals prior to the Discussion of Atomic Compounds. 

Social-Media/Gaming Building Blocks: The Digital Game Board of “The Now”

Social-Media/Gaming Building Blocks: The Digital Game Board of “The Now”

Here I discuss Digital gameplay at it's most basic level.  The fact that my focus is on digital has no material bearing on the validity of the observations and statements, but I will say that it is far easier to gather empirical metrics from online gaming than it is from speculating on the metrics for "traditional gaming, played in privacy, on cardboard"(I.e. just because little Johnny received the board game version of Monopoly for his Birthday, does not mean that he ever opened the box.....)

Social-Media/Gaming Building Blocks: The Digital Game Board of “The Now”

 

 

 

 

On the Seeming Necessity to Write Very Long Passages when Discussing Very Complicated Things

On the Necessity to Write Very Long Passages when Discussing Very Complicated Things

Here is a Test, or possibly a Game concerning our subject at hand. 

There is only one objective:  Establish whether or not the following outline of statements contains any Truth.

The Orbital Discussion of Truth

The Orbital Discussion of Truth

 First let me say that by “Orbital” I don’t mean “lofty”, but I think things will become clearer somewhere further down on this page.

It happens from time to time, after writing a piece, as a contribution to a debate group to which I belong, that I will pause, and try to remember everything that I have ever read, from every famous author, from every age in in written history, and then attempt to articulate some semblance of a cohesive argument that seeks to make a point, defend a thesis, address another member's comment, etc.  And then, during moments like this one, i take a moment to consider the following:

Truth

Truth may be where we find it, but that does not mean that we will, but if we do, it certainly does not guarantee that anyone will validate what we believe we have found.

Truth

Truth may be where we find it, but that does not mean that we will, but if we do, it certainly does not guarantee that anyone will validate what we believe we have found.

If we mean to propose that a Truth may be contained somewhere within the essence of an a posteriori synthetic proposition (Descartes + Kant + Aristotle)….the discernment of an essence (Descartes) may rely upon the a posteriori knowledge of the “truth seeker (Kant), whereas this“knowledge” is the combination of and intellectual organization of sensory and cognitive contributions (Aristotle), then possibly Aquinas said it best: (to paraphrase) “Truth exists wherever it is found”. Which in my view does not mean that anyone can blindly stumble upon, and then recognize Truth after tripping over it, instead, I believe that many things which are readily available to be found, are not, because when they are “found”, the “finder” is not equipped to recognize the “finding” (and this is where we need our full team of philosophical explorers: Descartes + Kant + Aristotle). If we are satisfied with this logic, we might go on to say that a newly “found” Truth, although presenting itself, may remain undiscovered. Hidden in plain sight I suppose. This may be an argument for Truth seekers to travel in small groups. But I think more practically, I will remain by what I said in an earlier post: that Truth is often highly individualized.

Linguistic Fuzziness

Linguistic Fuzziness

It’s the Infusion of Meaning into words, phrases and sentences that may not carry as cleanly as the literal words and phrases.  Like the fuzz on the surface of a tennis ball causes the ball to carry differently than a ball that is identical, except has a smooth surface.

Linguitsic Fuzziness

It’s the Infusion of Meaning into words, phrases and sentences that may not carry as cleanly as the literal words and phrases.  Like the fuzz on the surface of a tennis ball causes the ball to carry differently than a ball that is identical, except has a smooth surface.

I imagine a tennis ball that is entirely smooth white rubber.  It is a clean, non-porous material, and is constructed from simple compounds that are “atomic level” ingredients.  It’s just a plain, white, rubber ball.  In language, maybe the equivalent is “blue dog eats chicken”.  Pretty simple compounds, not much room for misinterpretation. Blue. Dog. Eats. Chicken. This phrase does not need to make sense any more than a “smooth, white, rubber, ball”.  It only gets complicated when we project additional information into the compound because for some reason or other, we believe, based on a priori knowledge, that we think it belongs there.  This projection of additional information, may or may not correspond to the meaning that was “infused” (or not) by the speaker of these words.  It is this layer of potentially ambiguity that I think of as the fuzzy green stuff found on the outside of a new tennis ball.  The base compounds are underneath, but are layered over with a “fuzziness”, which is what we will always come into contact with first. As the ball moves from A to B, this fuzziness can cause, or be used to cause, behaviors that would/could not exist if it were just a “smooth, white, rubber, ball”.  A tennis ball left outside for long enough will eventually lose its fuzziness. And just be a ball.  The context has “worn off”.  The same is true in communication.

In my example I was attempting to demonstrate that “meaning” is a layer of communication which sits above words, phrases, sentences, etc.  Simple statements can be understood by different people, with different backgrounds to mean very different things.  I was saying that I think someone’s background, and current state, can be evaluated by questions that have no definitive right or wrong answers, and in some cases, can cause total confusion because the question is understood, but how to answer it is not, and can through the interviewees brain into something of a loop.  It’s in some ways a more conversational style of word-association.

So yes I understand that Linguistic Semantics is the Title of this Group, and that it is also a field of study, but I am also saying that it a mechanism for evaluation, and therefore potentially the basic structure for Psychological evaluation tools.  Not that LS needs to be used that way, just that it can be.

My Blade Runner citation seemed an appropriate example of how the meaning of a construct of words and phrases can be understood, or not, and the resulting reactions to the realization (or not) of the meaning, can be used to begin to “frame in” the Psych profile of the interviewee.

Expression through language will always have a “sender”, and generally have a “receiver”.  It is one thing to understand what was meant by the Sender, it is another to understand the meaning perceived by the Receiver.

Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation

Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation:

Same Words, Same Contexts: Different People, Different Reactions, Different Meanings

 

"You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down; you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?"**

Entology and Entropy; Together Again at Last, Possibly.

Entology and Entropy; Together Again at Last, Possibly.

Poor Descartes (Med 1st Philosophy, etc.), understands so completely that in order to establish just one simple truth about anything that he perceives either Cognitively and/or Sensorially in the real world, he must throw down an anchor and stop the maelstrom of uncertainties, doubts, and humilities from sinking his faith-tainted vessel and keep it from disappearing into the murkiness of the all that we don’t know, as he makes his philosophical voyage across the expanses of the finite to the infinite.  He “knows” that he needs to somehow establish something to be True, by way of a process of reason, that he can feel ok about, given his strong tendencies towards belief in things that are extremely difficult( if not impossible) to prove.  He comes to something of a conclusion that other potential truths must be referenced against an unquestionable Truth. 

The Quantum Evaluation of Truth?

We tackled the Quantum Evaluation of Morality not too long ago, so seems like I ought to bring things back around to the middle about now.

The difference between Truth and Untruth is simply a function of the distance in conscious space covered during a period of time in which the consideration is manifested in ones’ awareness as they travel at some semantic velocity along a trajectory established by the a priori knowledge of actions and consequences. It is uncertain therefore where in a continuum of conscious space and time one will be, when an established point in time is selected for an evaluation of relative Truth and Untruth. And it could be supposed that until the wave form collapse of all possibilities occurs, one could be both simultaneously Truthful and Untruthful, but with no quantifiable degree of certainty.

On the Unlimited Imperfections of Language: "Language. Unlimited? Possibly. Perfect? Not Likely."

Language. Unlimited? Possibly.  Perfect? Not Likely.

Imagine trying to draw a perfectly smooth circle out of straight lines, or little tiny squares.  This is in fact what a computer does.  Unsophisticated computers produce circles that have jagged edges, like a saw blade.  Very fancy computers seem to produce flawless curves and thus perfect circles.  But, zoom in close enough on the edge of that “perfect” circle, and you will find the same saw tooth edging that was readily visible on the unsophisticated computer. 

Un-Rapt

"Un-Rapt":  “Considerations of Sensorially Perceived Immersion in Selectively Irrelevant Contexts and the Cognitive Auto-response that Catalyzes the Restoration of a Preferred Bio-Psycho-Social State Generally Identified by a Reconciled Singularity of Cognitive and Sensory Perceptions.”

On Linguistic Semantics

*** Let me preface this post by saying that it is my latest response to an ongoing discussion around Linguistic Semantics.  So if it appears to not have an entirely proper introduction or conclusion, that is because it comes from the middle of a discussion.  At some point I will add the beginng, and the ending, but I think this abstraction as some value on its own. ***

 

 

On Linguistic Semantics: Context

The Context in which the speaker infuses his chosen vocabulary with some amount of unspoken Qualifications, which may or may not be perceived correctly or even at all by the listener.

Semantics is a qualitative, literary arsenal of obfuscations or clarifications ( case dependent of course), used either offensively, defensively, or haphazardly, depending mostly upon who you are, where you are, what comprises the sum of your life experiences, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your experiential recall, and most importantly, your desire and ability to partake in the arts of “Crowd-Sourced Meta-Cognition.”

Irrational ExuberanceV2.0 – A Webinar to learn how to be Irrational!! Part II

Unfortunately, there is a Part II, but I did warn you it was coming, and I didn't have to wait long for it: 

“Stalemate: How the alternating dominance of superior cognitive hemispheric bi-polarization is capable of neutralizing thought productivity.”

Irrational ExuberanceV2.0 – Now You can take Irrationality with You!!

Irrational ExuberanceV2.0 – Irrationality goes Mobile!

The Quantum Evaluation of Morality?

The difference between Right and Wrong is simply a function of the distance in conscious space covered during a period of time in which the consideration is manifested in ones’ awareness as they travel at some "moral" velocity along a trajectory established by the a priori knowledge of actions and consequences.  It is uncertain therefore where in a continuum of conscious space and time one will be, when an established point in time is selected for an evaluation of relative right and wrong.  And it could be supposed that until the wave form collapse of all possibilities occurs, one could be both simultaneously right and wrong, but with no quantifiable degree of certainty.

Being Right, is Not Good Enough

"Un-Rapt": “Considerations of Sensorially Perceived Immersion in Selectively Irrelevant Contexts and the Cognitive Auto-response that Catalyzes the Restoration of a Preferred Bio-Psycho-Social State Generally Identified by a Reconciled Singularity of Cognitive and Sensory Perceptions.”

"Un-Rapt":  “Considerations of Sensorially Perceived Immersion in Selectively Irrelevant Contexts and the Cognitive Auto-response that Catalyzes the Restoration of a Preferred Bio-Psycho-Social State Generally Identified by a Reconciled Singularity of Cognitive and Sensory Perceptions.”

In other words: 

We often find ourselves surrounded by contextual elements that we feel don’t matter to us, but in many people, it has become a reflex to filter out all of the contextual elements that we feel are not important, thereby paring down our conscious thoughts and sights to only those things that we choose to take interest in, and this simplified, personal(sensorial/Cognitive) harmony, produces a state of consciousness in which we are most comfortable, or that we most desire.  

We need to care deeply about this concept because if we are the mass producers of “contextual elements” that are consistently visible, yet filtered out of a population’s real-time consciousness, we will not achieve our objectives.

There is a great “Allegory of the Sign Maker”,  who is so successful, that all of his neighbors buy his signs, until the roadsides are so saturated with iteratively more elaborate signs that two things happen: 1) The Sign Maker’s own sign is “lost” in the forest of other signs and no one can now find his store 2) Passersby begin to collectively associate all of the signage as irrelevant, and it ceases to remain( via subconscious selective filtering) part of the person’s current-state awareness ( a perfect example of this is Route 22 around Greenbrook….), and the combined investment in the dense forest of signage experiences an ever declining level of value

Improving outcomes of virtual reality based protocol execution through a reduction of cognitive disintermediation caused by non-instinctive haptic input devices and cognitively inconsistent modal model interruptions

Areas: Cognitive and Computer science based learning theory applied to business, education and health

 

Improving outcomes of virtual reality based protocol execution through a reduction of cognitive disintermediation caused by non-instinctive haptic input devices and cognitively inconsistent modal model interruptions

 

 A human brain assigned the task of completing a protocol is in State when it is processing through the modes that comprise the model.  The more that cognitive resources are in alignment with processing the modes, and the fewer State interruptions encountered by the brain, the greater the likelihood of positive outcomes in model completion.

            When models are developed for the completion of tasks using computer systems, the model is necessarily interspersed with tasks only indirectly relevant to the model that yields task completion.  However, the author of the model describing the task, will assume that the user is able to consciously insert the non-model related technology tasks as needed.  In fact, the fluid ability to follow a Modal Model protocol, while in addition processing the necessary(but indirect) insertion of technology tasks requires a great deal of cognitive resource, whether conscious or unconscious to the person performing the task.  As may be expected, the relative cognitive premium required to complete the model using technology, is a function of the performers proficiency with the tool, the intuitiveness of the tool, and the overall cognitive resources of the performer.

            In our application of virtual reality technology as a medium for education, communication, and task completion, we are motivated to render contexts for model execution that minimize the cognitive premium required to perform tasks that are not described in the model necessary for task completion.  In our study we look to articulate the impact on model outcomes when cognitive resources are preserved for model mode consideration.

            We will present a virtual reality environment that has been optimized for modal model completion and minimization of the cognitive premium required to interface with the technology.  Using virtual manifestations of the user(as a whole, or in part), minimization of proprioception, and replacement of inefficient haptic input devices, users of our environments will improve model outcomes through preservation and refocusing of cognitive resources.  We will deploy these methodologies into the contexts of education, business, and gerontechnology.

“Stalemate: How the alternating dominance of superior cognitive hemispheric bi-polarization is capable of neutralizing thought productivity.”

It is further  to be considered that hemispheric bi-polarization is quite often mis-diagnosed as Attention Deficit Disorder(ADD), when in fact, there is a very high level of intense focus on the complex assemblage of a construct, and thus attention retains it’s singularity of focus within the brain, but there is a missing “middle ground” which if present, would be the local in which the parts are summed and the construct is completed and presented

 

Manic Stability: the effectiveness of counter-balanced hemispheric bi-polarization

A common perception is that one with exhibitions of “talents” deriving somewhat equally from the Left and Right hemispheres of the brain, ought to have a significant cognitive advantage over one who is essentially polarized to the Left or to the Right.   The question that requires explanation however is:  does hemispheric bi-polarization create intellectual leverage such that the sum of the manifested bi-polarizations are greater than the sum(of 1) unilaterally polarized brain function?  In other words, over centuries, one who exhibited a wide array of “talents” that bridged the hemispheric gap, was often referred to a Renaissance Man: equally capable of expertly painting a landscape as he might be in engineering the mechanics of a watch. 

 

There is however a counter-point to the Renaissance Man ideal,  and I shall refer to this counter-pointed personification as the Neutralized Man: where the manic swings between the two polar extremes creates not an abundance of diverse productivity, but instead, produces an abundance of works, that when viewed as a sum, have little to no applied value.  Not to say that taken in isolation the workings of the Neutralized Man are not good, great, or even ground-breaking, what I mean to say, is that observed over time, the sum total of that which is produced by the Neutralized Man is far less when one uses a measure of Relevant Applications.  Even more damaging is that this manic bi-polarization can in some cases, produce a complete inability to combine the output from the Left and Right brain, yielded nothing but 2 distinct scrapyards of half-completed works.  And this is not to say that these half completed works have no intrinsic value, but it is to say that this value will never be realized unless the “scraps” from the cognitively dis-intermediated stockpiles are at some point assembled into a singular, cohesive, construct.  Similarly, distributed manufacturing is off things such as automobiles is quite common, but there always exists a functional model of bringing the parts together in a single location for assemblage into something of totality and value.  

 

But what of these stockpiles of manufactured parts, while intrinsically excellent when considered individually, if in fact they are never brought together and assembled such that they can be used effectively?  Clearly the assembled “sum of the parts” in this case, is worth far more than two sums, that had the potential to be assembled, but were not, and this would remain true even if the two distinct sums were each of significantly greater quality or quantity. 

 

It is therefore put forth in this paper, that the Neutralized Man, while perhaps commonly perceived, or even expected to produce constructs of great value, may in fact demonstrate excellence in producing parts, but lacks the necessary “centralized point of assemblage” that is required to turn scrap into manifested value.

 

i don't know how well this is going to work, but I am going to attempt to upload a magazine article as a photo, then upload my reponse to the article in 2 subsequent photos.  Let's see....well it worked out just fine.  The initial font is tiny, but just click the image to get a larger version fit for reading.

I'm not dead yet.....

It's been some number of months since I last posted. To be superfluously precise my last post was June 2010.  So we are just short of 3 years in terms of updating the site with new content.

It’s really hard to say however, whether or not anyone read the old content.  In any case, no I did not lose my fingers in a typing accident (I heard that somewhere), no I didn’t “unplug, and go off the grid”.  What I did do was a tremendous volume of things that did not include updating this blog. But enough about me, I have something to post and will attempt it now…..  in my next post