Patterns within thought

[GSHIPPEYQ]

Hello Christain

I agree but I am point out that most people Implicily think this and that the problem, to me it more and part of a process.

Korzybski said "what ever we say a thing is it always more than what we Meaning"

Now Hegel also point toawrds this with whatever we look at in a finite way it always impies something beyond itself?

self-reflectiveness’.yes that no dout working in the back ground, however this implies also something beyond itself does it not?

Now to Bohm QP yes it appears nonlocal in the simple Mech version, however within the Implicate order Concepts like local and nonlocal have less meaning
and Implicate A-local with explicate points, that on a large scale form a pattern that we assume with ouworng headed concepts as local and nonlocal.

As for Duetsch he as you know has a different view there is nothing nonlocal in MW INTERPRETATION is all local however information is
that this is local information enfolded through classical decoherent channles, and can only emerges after the whole system has beeen operated on.To Deutsch the SWE hiddes and make this information appear to travel nonlocal, however when looking at just the operator picture it becomes clear
which is similar to what Bohm and Hiley found in the algebraic Holomovement, however they still stuck with some form os wholeness, which Deutsch did not!

Which is right who knows, but it fun to see that they are moving closer?

Warm Regards
Gordon.

[Christian B]

"self-reflectiveness’.yes that no dout working in the back ground, however this implies also something beyond itself does it not?"


The mystery of the Self is that it always transcends itself. It is unknown to itself.


[glow=blue,1,300]"What is the last end? It is the mystery of the darkness of the eternal Godhead which is unknown and never shall be known. Therein God abides to Himself unknown." Eckhart
[/glow]

[GSHIPPEYQ]

Hello Christain
yes the meaning I get however the 'name' we give implicit give there own hidden assumptions, and therfore try to colour the know
that ok becuase we all do it however it not when it's not seen as colouring and hence not a true Unknown???

I guess I am palying Devil's adovcate here

Best to you
Gordon.

[Christian B]

'meaning', 'we' and 'assumptions' presuppose consciousness, mind and self.
Who is 'we'?
Can language and memory have 'hidden' assumptions?
How do you know that you exist, if 'mind' is only a 'name'?

[MikeExplorer]

Many thanks for your points here Chrisitian.

Mike

[rpol]

I am new to this Forum but wanted to add something relative to your original observation and question, but somewhat off from your ongoing discussion.

I have learned that our vision first occurs by sensing an energy wave pattern, the frequency of which it then decomposes to an object which the brain then analyzes and stores for future use. It seems to decompose these patterns via a method very similar to the Fourrier Transform.

Thus, since it appears that everything starts off as a wave pattern, and that, according to people like DeBroglie, all matter has an inherent probability wave attched to it, that it would not seem surprising that our minds seek patterns, as you say, in whatever way it can and perhaps, must.

Does this kind of concept add to the equation or does it not have any relevance to your way of thinking and experience.
Bob

[Christian B]

One should note that for matter (material substance) there is no any ‘patterns’ only physical states exist. It is the mind that conceives patterns, relationships and structure. This is usually where modern science makes mistake in explaining human consciousness – it uses terms which already imply existence of consciousness in other to explain the origin of consciousness, e.g. word ‘complexity’ is frequently used as a source of emergent consciousness even though ‘complexity’ is in the mind of the observer whose self-awareness we are trying to explain on the first place.

[Dancer]

Sorry for the long delay, I have ahd alot on.

Well Bohm/Hiley if you take a closer look you may notice that it is infact not a Nonlocal theory and does not conflict with Relativity, you may say WHAT!

However the explicate order is the part we directly percieve, therefore it is the one we untilizes (and bulid up spacetime picture from) however in the wider domian there is prespace, which a-local, and with these things in mind, entanglement cannot be strictly defined as nonlocal.For to be so is must be set against a background of classical spacetime, some which the Bohm/Hiley interpretation has already dropped.

Gordon.

PS: You stated that Many worlders have difficulity explaining nonlocality.

Well in Deutsch/Hayden paper of 1999 they state that MWI does not except nonlocal behavour, they explain entanglement as being merely 'locally inaccessible information', enfolded within each quanta and pass through classical channels, they claim that wave picture masks the actual dynamics of the quantum network, where as the Matrix picture clearly shows that there are no nonlocal effects.

If they are right it spell death for Debrogile-Bohm interpretation, however it does not touch the Bohm/Hiley interpretation.

Mainly becuase the nonlocal behvoiur is merely and abstraction on a alocal pleum, and MWI do except that some kind of enfolding process is going on however unlike Bohm they give no explaination as to why or how this hapopens???

Funny how MWI ir coming around the long way to Bohm/Hiley idea's?

Gordon.

[Dancer]

Sorry about that I ended up answering the wrong question?

I agree with what you said in the last post, however there is a difference between predictive emergent and purley emergence.
Science someties confuses these mainly becuase most fields are based on hierarchical structures, and they assmue that the same is for other fields, therefore look for a law or predictive mechnisitc equation. Where instead we could be chasing our own tail?

Gordon.

[emile]

it seems important to address the difference between 'wave patterns' and 'patterns', ...wave-patterns giving much more (i.e. observer-including) scope than 'patterns' where the implication is of discrete instances of 'patterns that exist' as seen by an outside/excluded observer.

the notion that 'things exist', that 'the universe exists', that 'the self exists', ... that 'patterns exist' , ... imposes upon us the absolute (outside/excluded observer) constraints of euclidian space and linear time. that is, things that exist have absolute beginning and absolute ends on a 'timeline' as seen from an outside observer.

patterns as waveforms are purely relational and undergoing continuing transformation in the continuing present. holographic wavefield imaging allows the included/inside observer view.

most of science is done in euclidian framing coordinates where things exist as seen by the outside/excluded observer and this is the domain of 'thoughts'. as emmanual kant declared;

"Euclidean geometry is the inevitable necessity of thought", ... and time is "A category allowing one to order events in a before-after-relationship".

kant may well have been correct, but what our thoughts impose on our thinking is not imposed on either nature or our experiencing of nature, and neither nature nor our experiencing of it is bound to conform to a euclidian space framing, as lobachevsky, gauss and riemann have shown, and also poincare and einstein in the case of relativity and non-euclidian spherical space where space is no longer split apart from time but space is instead re-constituted as dynamical relationships transforming in the continuing present.

does the indicated plurality of 'patterns' imply multiple patterns (different instances of patterns that enjoy discrete existence), ... or, ... does the plurality indicate different observations as might be made of the ocean at different place-times given by the observer's inclusional situation?

certainly our somatic awareness of inclusion in the dynamical space of now seems to transcend our 'thoughts' on the matter, as poincare elaborates on in 'the relativity of space' and the anecdote of the headless frog. the headless frog that seeks to remove a drop of acid irritant from his body with his foot is not manifesting a case of 'remanent hand-to-eye pattern-based coordination', the eyes having departed with the head, .. but geoemetric patterns of relationship still being available to the frog's nested cell-level somatic awareness.

that our seat of somatic awareness is deeper than the seat our cognitive awareness is demonstrated by the gap between the foundations of the 'self' as seen by rene descartes versus the modern day eckhart tolle (who reconciles buddhist and native american traditions/patterns of understanding with relativity and quantum connectedness); i.e.

descartes, in declaring 'cogito ergo sum' made 'thinking' the foundation of the 'self'

eckhart tolle, proponent of buddhist and native american patterns of tradition, as well as relativity and quantum theory, implies that the foundation of 'self' go deeper than thoughts and, like the headless frog, emerge from the interpermeating dynamical spatial relationships that are transforming in the continuing now;

"When each thought absorbs your attention completely, it means you identify with the voice in your head. Thought then becomes invested with a sense of self. This is the ego, and mind-made 'me' . That mentally constructed self feels incomplete and precarious. That\'s why fearing and wanting are its predominant emotions and motivating forces.

When you recognize that there is a voice in your head that pretends to be you and never stops speaking, you are awakening out of your unconscious identification with the stream of thinking. When you notice that voice, you realize that who you are is not the voice --- the thinker--- but the one who is aware of it. Knowing yourself as the awareness behind the voice is freedom." ---Eckhart Tolle, Stillness

so, there are patterns THAT EXIST within thought, and there are the evanescent metamorphosing patterns of spatial dynamics that are us and within which we inclusional nest as with whorls within whorls of fluidflow dynamics or hurricanes within atmospheric dynamics. the discreteness that enables the 'plurality' of 'existing' pattern instances (and invokes the outside/excluded observer with his absolute linear clock in an anteroom beyond nature) vanishes when we back off out of euclidian space into the relational space of relativity.

science that sticks with euclidian space and the fragmenting view of discrete instances of patterns 'that exist' constrains itself to a radical incompleteness, that of understanding the world in terms of what things do (yang only) as seen by an outside god-like observer and ignoring the participative behaviour-shaping influence of space (yin) that is felt by the immersed-in-space inside/included observer.

[Carol Massey]

Just tipping my hat to determine if there is anyone at home in the forum still. It seems that it's been a while (in linear time) since these conversations were active. So far, I have enjoyed the reading room.

This topic in particular caught my attention as I have an interest in it too, and wonder that these patterns within thought are similar to Stuart Kauffman's self-organizing systems and Rupert Sheldrakes nested heirarchies and morphic fields.

Also, Tor Norretrander's [u]The User Illusion[/u] has been of great value in helping me to understand that "I" am the user illusion (and slowly responsive consciousness) of my autopoetic Self.

I've knocked on the door now, and I'll check back later to see if anyone lives here....still.

[emile]

thanks to the notification option on this forum software, ... the knock was audible.

my view is that we are essentially 'acoustic space perceiving' creatures, and that visual perception is a much more limited, non-spatial, sense which we have technology-amplified, if you want to think of the 'language' as a technology.

language, as a game, like a computer game, is something we have become addicted to and it keeps us 'inside' (inside our head) instead of engaging with the outdoors, as when we are in our acoustic space experiencing mode.

as the russian pyschologist lev vygotsky's research into concept formation showed, a gesture or utterance takes on meaning when someone else says or does something that gives it meaning, thus words are signallings-for-others, before we let them graduate, according to the game-play, to pure abstraction where we see them as having meaning in their own right. for example, there is no physical meaning to 'this is an international border crossing'. it is purely imaginary. its only source of meaning is when police and military 'make believers' out of everyone. the same for any noun-label describing an 'object' (objects don't really exist, as henri poincare pointed out, their independent existence is just a 'convention' we impose). the baby may call her bottle anything, e.g. 'mokkie', ... and as long as her mother fetches it for her when she says 'mokkie', the language game works. that is, the meaning of word-labelled objects comes from everyone playing the language game, the meaning is not in the object itself.

thus, meaning inferred by language is embodied in our relational experience (our 'acoustic space or 'holodynamical' experience), ... but our thoughts tend to twist off from our inclusional experience, with the help of language. that's how we are losing touch with our inclusional experience. when we approach an international border, it is our knowledge of the trouble we shall get into if we ignore it that will makes us say, if asked. of course there is a border there, ... when you sail between that boundary marker there and the tip of that peninsula there, you are crossing from canada into the US', ... as if that were the same sort of truth as the truth of our natural experience, instead of just a language game truth.

kauffman and sheldrake seem to be working more from the point of view of describing the complexity of the world 'out there' we live in, rather than our 'bewitchment' by language games, as wittgenstein and poincare have put it.

the same applies to quantum physicists. in the film 'what-the-bleep-do-we-know', ... the ambiguous possibilities of quantum reality are portrayed in terms of visual space perception (multiple realities existing at the same time). this is just the tail of our sentience wagging the dog. visual space perception doesn't comprehend how our behaviour is guided by the shape of the hostspace dynamic we are included in, that evolves in the continuing present. words describing visual perception (the two are co-bewitchers) won't even tell you how the hungry crowd waiting for a space (table) to open up in a crowded restaurant is inductively transforming the dynamics. that is, visual space perception is all after-the-fact, as is newtonian dynamics. but we know from our experience that the actualizing of our assertive potentials and the accommodative geometro-dynamics of the hostspace we are included in are mutually defining (a 'yin-yang' view of dynamics, as we fits our real-life experience).

to describe what goes on in the restaurant in terms of what individual people actually do, is radically over-simplified, ... ignores the manner in which the transforming shape of space guides individual behaviour, ... the elan vitale of the evolutionary dynamic, and impossible to ignore when one accepts the philosophical principle that motion is relative rather than absolute.

so, language that is based on individual objects (the existence of mathematical objects as poincare says. are a prejudice we impose on mathematics that cannot be dealt with within such an object-based mathematics) and their various actions and interactions has already bypassed the point where it might have dealt with space-guided behaviour, and thus it carries with it the inference, in the case of man, of purely internally-driven purpose, ... which the ego loves since we can take pride in the literality of our resumes, either as individuals or as nations, without accounting for the mutual defining of the accommodative possibility-giving geometro-dynamics of space; i.e. when the son of a mafia don or the son of a king walks into a crowd, the crowd parts for him like the red seas parted for moses. visual perception based accounting can't handle this because the accommodative side of the dynamic (the 'yin' space aspect) is invisible, a lao tsu and others have pointed out.

so, who is 'I'? if objects are simply a convention? are we defined by our visual space data, by what we do, our literal resumes? or do we, like the hurricane in the atmosphere, have an over-riding yin-aspect, .... given an identity by our unique situating within the accommodating of the hostspace dynamic that is evolving in the continuing present? .... that is, an identity that emerges from the mutual defining of how we actualize our assertive potentials relative to how the accommodative geometro-dynamics of the hostspace we are included in open up possibility for us in the continuing present?

we have been bewitched by language into believing that 'we are what we do', .... and if space is not accommodative, then we shall have a false low estimate of who we are, going by this basis, and is space is accommodative, then we shall have a false high estimate of who we are.

[Carol Massey]

Thank you emile. I appreciate your explanation of acoustic space perception. I've always appreciated an apple on its own merit...even before I knew its name. And the first pineapple I ate in in the islands, picked ripe from the plant, was surely not the same object I had always called/known as 'pineapple', picked and shipped green to the Midwest USA.

[Emile said:] "the baby may call her bottle anything, e.g. 'mokkie', ... and as long as her mother fetches it for her when she says 'mokkie', the language game works. that is, the meaning of word-labelled objects comes from everyone playing the language game, the meaning is not in the object itself."

Now I have to ponder this a while, and wonder if you are saying that 1) we are collectively, consciously and/or unconsciously, 2)projecting meaning onto all objects, thereby, 3) creating a consensus reality that is extremely fluid in its ability to alter and change like light reflecting on a crystal.

You are certainly a knowledgeable person, Emile, and you've given me quite a bit to ponder. I'm a slow thinker, and it may take me a while to process so much information. I'll return with my list of questions at the ready!

Again, Thank you.

[emile]

carol, you have pretty much replicated vygotsky's sum-up in your 1,2,3 sentence;

"consciousness is reflected in a word as the sun in a drop of water"

but to clarify, he also says in his final summary paragraphs in 'thought and language';

"We studied the inward aspects of speech, which were as unknown to science as the other side of the moon. We tried to establish the connection between word and object, word and reality. We attempted to study experimentally the dialectics of transition from perception to thinking, and to show that a generalized reflection of reality is the basic characteristic of words. This aspect of the word brings us to the threshold of a wider and deeper subject, i.e., the problem of the relation between word and consciousness. If perceptive [experiential] consciousness and intellectual consciousness reflect reality differently, then we have two different forms of consciousness."

as you point out, we have an intellectual consciousness of 'pineapple' and an experiential consciousness that implicitly includes it (but doesn't 'break it out on its own' since that requires that we word-label it, which requires that at least two people agree on it.)

"The word is a thing in our consciousness, as Ludwig Feurbach put it, that is absolutely impossible for one person, but that becomes a reality for two. The word is a direct expression of the historical nature of human consciousness'.). ['historical', intended by vygotsky in the sense of continuing geological deposition or 'genticheskii'.]

[Carol Massey]

"This aspect of the word brings us to the threshold of a wider and deeper subject, i.e., the problem of the relation between word and consciousness. If perceptive [experiential] consciousness and intellectual consciousness reflect reality differently, then we have two different forms of consciousness."

I don't think we have two different forms of consciousness. More accurately, it seems to me, we have two different functions of consciousness, and each are co-dependent on the other. One participates in the objective world, while the other is realized as body sensations, such as emotions and feelings, or as intuition and instinct. In this sense, perhaps consciousness most accurately reflects reality when 'both' functions are communicating harmoniously and sharing information, so both are optimizing thier learning capabilities.

Now the two functions are in communion, working as a single unit, acknowledging and respecting their complementary functions as necessary to arrive at this (deeper level of unity).

So, I think the following statement can apply to two separate individuals, or equally to two separate functions operative within one individual:

"The word is a thing in our consciousness, as Ludwig Feurbach put it, that is absolutely impossible for one person, but that becomes a reality for two."

Are you with me Emile? Being an individual whose primary function is intuition, I naturally begin on the subjective side of thought. It takes great effort for me to reach out to my rational, thinking function. But I give it the old 'college try' (as they say around here!