|
Author
|
Topic: A Hypothetical Cognitive Model: an approach to Self-Designing
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 10. March 2004 09:42
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Self-Designing.pdf
A Hypothetical Cognitive Model: an approach to Self-Designing
Bidyut Sarkar
All existences, ever possible in Cosmos, blend in a common soup. It is ‘0’-symmetry or proper time. Time can only start in both ways: forwardly as Space, reflecting ‘classical entropy’ (visionary field) of the subsystem and backwardly as Time reflecting its quantum negentropy (feeling field). The later is fused spaces of rest all other subsystems. But this is the experience in classical world. In quantum world convention of direction of time interchanges. The space-time is exclusive on singularity of tuning microtubular electrons of Macroscopic Quantum System (MQS). Topology of seat of cognition simulates that of Möbius strip. Here, finite designs produced by mixed order fields in 3D merges with infinite 2D within and infinite 4D without. This happens on absolute churn and fusion both ways. Towards this Nullification irreductionism, guided by dynamical systems, is the stronger half in comparison to traditional reductionism. Nevertheless every finite or mortal system must have deeper immortal existence on Lorentz Invariance.
[ 14. March 2004, 07:57: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chinmoybose
Member
Member # 1064
|
posted 28. March 2004 23:37
This is an excellent dicussion regarding involvement of complexity science in our existence and funcyioning and it has huge similarity with Vedanta Philosophy of hinduism where Brahma is formless, workless ideal frame concept over which maya acts and universe evolves./ It needs more discussion. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 21. April 2004 13:08
Chinmoy, to me, you have introduced the famous Universal argument in disguise. And this, with its divine essence, arises spontaneously. But neither my study nor my spiritual practice along Hindu philosophy is not that deep summarize the theme with substantial expertise. Here, I should mention two great Hindu philosophers who compiled ‘Vedic shrutis’ and powerfully deduced The Absolute, The structureless and formless, amidst It’s infinitely diverse designs (Purusha and Prakriti). These two famous personalities are Kapila (founder of Samkhya – 800 BC) and Shankaracharya (founder of non-dualistic Advaitabad – 800 AD). Advaitabad says “I am Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute; I am He, only One Absolute Self, Brahman (The Science and Philosophy of Religion – Swami Vivekananda). Similar philosophy we encounter in western philosophy also, particularly the deep development of Baruch Spinoza (1632- 1677) on Cartesian philosophy. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Here, Brahman is always complete in any of its infinite numbers of finite frames, may it be micro-elementary of macro-elementary. But the criticality how ‘one becomes many’ remains unsolved before scientific mind.
Spinoza’s expression of God had a profound influence on young Einstein’s mind. Theory of Relativity in its full bloom is the expression of this divine Beauty. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) gave a very powerful proposition on existence: something exists in space because rest existences do not exist there in that particular time. But this existence is the expression of conscious state. Matti Pitkänen, in his foundation of Topological Geometro-Dynamics, defined that conscious existences are valid only discretely. When I am conscious you ain’t.
Euclidean space can never resist emergence of associative space of higher order as byproducts. Any complex self-organization in these higher spaces can execute its own cosmos instantaneously by stimulating underlying Null. This reflects its entropy in context of rest all other subsystems. And it is a Universal event in simultaneity defining its exclusive space-time. In Self Designing classical entropy and quantum negentropy, whose fusion is an invariant (Universal event), are exclusively system selective. When I exist consciously you exist subconsciously and vice versa.
IP: Logged
|
|
chinmoybose
Member
Member # 1064
|
posted 21. April 2004 14:07
There is no argument even. Purport of Atman is defining self or Chaitanya, consciousness. Like a small fire explains huge fire, why cant you see ordinary unexplained chaitanya by which I know me and everybody knows themselves aaare essentially a part of Brahaman or ataman. Our philosophy even sas utterly interesting principle which seems unfailing. It is: you can never know knowledge by which you knowyou can be knowledge only. It is good practice to gather knowledge but only to know its limitation. I mean, it is holistic approach. You can not know atman but only be atman. Vivekananda told it is not true that all we see are brahman, but there is nothing but brahman. Only by negating all knowledge you can be brahman, it is beyond cause effect, beyond space time, formless, qualityless, beyond human perception, but very much living, conscious, chaitanya. Vivekananda's Gurudev, His Lordship, Sri Sri Ramakrishna said let consciousness (chaitanya) come to you and you be consciuos. All else except consciousness is bound to suffer from reductionism, thereby incomplete. whereas Conscious is so near it is within us very much. It is too far and too near. Reality is no less , it is greatest proof.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 29. April 2004 13:49
At the beginning of our common soup of existence Ontogenic Null eventuates. Existence perceives it consciously according to the design of the ensemble, the system in present moment. That may be finite or infinite. All elements of cosmos are exhibited in phase space of each ensemble, may it be a single electron or whole cosmos.
In voluntary mode design is not purely natural but of sophisticated robotics developed evolutionarily. There is always an appreciable amount of loss of energy to overcome mass. As they are executed on shorter sensory arm they only mimic but can’t bloom exacting the demand of present situation. But the interesting point, related to my topic, is that every design, involved in this execution, is system selective. Or each design is exclusively unique, not similar with others in space-time.
Classico-quantum measurement is the most sophisticated phenomena happening within intelligent system like our macroscopic quantum system. It eventuates on motor BN where on absolute churn GDS fulcrum, an elementary dimension remains hided in FD, gets exposed. Additive group accomplishes process of measurement where multiplication gets closed. It is a singular finite path synchronous with infinite journeys within the subsystem. It is the only condition that satisfies:
Infinity – 1 = Infinity; as Infinity and ‘0’ both are absolute
This is the result of automatic serial tuning along definition of the subsystem decided on the proper time during its birth. Obviously designs involved are exclusively system selective. Within single finite journey infinite journeys get churned at this big moment (Bigbang to Bigcrunch) called present moment. Spinglass analogy supports ontogeny of finite primes out of scalars classically. To me, finite primes along with intervening antiprimes are denoted as ‘mayas’ in Hindu philosophy. Their strength shouldn’t be underestimated. They are the Reality, always referenced to invariant grids both ways. Scientific objectivism plays in Grandeur of present moment, finite frame yet infinite expression. Eventuation of these phenomena involves no energy waist.
Both the above modes take part in determining the order of designs of a subsystem with time. So, remaining constrained within scalar field prediction in terms of scalars is always fallible (Gödel). It is the linear typography along reductionism. But when one approaches the scalar field from nonlinear perspective prediction may be infallible. I hope that the approach towards scalars used by Srinivasa Ramanujan (Douglas R. Hofstadter) should be no longer a mystery.
Autonomic mode is the phase of random tuning of all nucleated electrons. So, here, rest of nucleated electrons also participate in the Grand symphony. This is n-dimensional resonance, not merely 2-dimensional as in case of troop of marching soldiers and the bridge. This is asymptotic (Hamiltonian) path of Pure randomness. Here is no energy loss, at all – Absolute state of Self-Designing. One Great sage Gracefully coins it as Consciousness (Chaitanya). Chinmoy, you’re right.
But, here consciousness conserves abstract-real duality. If one is Real other is Abstract and vice versa. So, equally one may also love to designate Consciousness of Classico-quantum mode as Subjective Consciousness and Pure random state (Caitanya) is Objective Sub-conscousness. And the statement “When I exist consciously (without) all you exist subconsciously (within)” is infallibly valid. I owe to my Guruji (Founder of ‘Art of Living’) and Matti Pitkänen (Founder of TGD) for bringing me this Message implicitly.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 02. June 2004 18:54
First things: I apologize for posting this rant here. I couldn't post it on the other place I wanted to. So I don't know quite where to go with it.
#1 I would like to air a beef with evolutionists. STOP GIVING CREDIT TO DARWIN FOR MENDLES WORK!!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 02. June 2004 19:33
First things: I apologize for posting this rant here. I couldn't post it on the other place I wanted to. So I don't know quite where to go with it.
#1 I would like to air a beef with evolutionists. STOP GIVING CREDIT TO DARWIN FOR MENDLES WORK!!
(I feel better now)
#2 Natural selection is NOT a force or theory or hypothysis. It is a lable for an aspect of nature. It's a bit like saying gravity. It tells you little about what causes it. It only gives you a peg to hang your hat on.
#3 I would very much like it if evolutionists would refrain from insisting that their theory is falsifiable. Karl Popper (the person who more or less codified the concept of falsifiabilty) denied that evolution had any empirical standing. He called it metaphysics. My own additional input on this would be as I have learned from Popper: a theory has to be "tight" to be considerd falsifiable. It can't be pliable the way the word "evolution" is.
#4 What evolution and Scientific Creationism are is: historical science. They are both a study of historical artifacts as they apply to the origins of life and their remains. Evolutionists seek to explain life in terms of naturalistic (unguided) causes. They almost always exclude any explaination that would include a designer.
The Creationist seeks an explaination of life that is informed by the Scriptures. They then pursue those things which tend to support the Scriptures.
This does NOT mean that they are willing to be dishonest or ignore problems.
#5 Intelligent design theory IS science in it's specifics such as Dembskis Specified Complexity, or Behe's irreducible complexity. These ideas are, especially Dembski's, tightly defined hypothysis. Behe's ideas may not fit into Popper's idea of empirical but I will say for him that his ideas are based on what can be observed and measured in real time.
#6 There are two reasons that an atheistic paradym of any kind won't work.(I mention this because usually the most ardant proponents of evolution have this view. And I believe this is why they stronly reject the notion of design.) One the reality that the universe has a finite beginning. We simply have no reason to believe that it is eternal and a whole lot of reasons to think it isn't. (i.e. thermodynamics and it's end results, cause and effect relationships that make science possible in the first place, expansion of the universe.) It is not acceptable to wave a wand and say expanding/collapsing cycle universe. That only pushes your beginning back to an earlier time.
If there is a beginning the inference is inescapable. Nothing comes from nothing. Secondly, a simple experiment with a copier can show you why copying errors don't improve the situation and certainly don't demonstrate the independant occurance of information. I will throw in a third for good measure: Conservation is a universal physical truth. We live in a lazy universe. Things don't do anything more than they absolutely have to and even then they don't keep going they wear down.
Thanks for letting me gripe....
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 02. June 2004 19:34
First things: I apologize for posting this rant here. I couldn't post it on the other place I wanted to. So I don't know quite where to go with it.
#1 I would like to air a beef with evolutionists. STOP GIVING CREDIT TO DARWIN FOR MENDLES WORK!!
(I feel better now)
#2 Natural selection is NOT a force or theory or hypothysis. It is a lable for an aspect of nature. It's a bit like saying gravity. It tells you little about what causes it. It only gives you a peg to hang your hat on.
#3 I would very much like it if evolutionists would refrain from insisting that their theory is falsifiable. Karl Popper (the person who more or less codified the concept of falsifiabilty) denied that evolution had any empirical standing. He called it metaphysics. My own additional input on this would be as I have learned from Popper: a theory has to be "tight" to be considerd falsifiable. It can't be pliable the way the word "evolution" is.
#4 What evolution and Scientific Creationism are is: historical science. They are both a study of historical artifacts as they apply to the origins of life and their remains. Evolutionists seek to explain life in terms of naturalistic (unguided) causes. They almost always exclude any explaination that would include a designer.
The Creationist seeks an explaination of life that is informed by the Scriptures. They then pursue those things which tend to support the Scriptures.
This does NOT mean that they are willing to be dishonest or ignore problems.
#5 Intelligent design theory IS science in it's specifics such as Dembskis Specified Complexity, or Behe's irreducible complexity. These ideas are, especially Dembski's, tightly defined hypothysis. Behe's ideas may not fit into Popper's idea of empirical but I will say for him that his ideas are based on what can be observed and measured in real time.
#6 There are two reasons that an atheistic paradym of any kind won't work.(I mention this because usually the most ardant proponents of evolution have this view. And I believe this is why they stronly reject the notion of design.) One the reality that the universe has a finite beginning. We simply have no reason to believe that it is eternal and a whole lot of reasons to think it isn't. (i.e. thermodynamics and it's end results, cause and effect relationships that make science possible in the first place, expansion of the universe.) It is not acceptable to wave a wand and say expanding/collapsing cycle universe. That only pushes your beginning back to an earlier time.
If there is a beginning the inference is inescapable. Nothing comes from nothing. Secondly, a simple experiment with a copier can show you why copying errors don't improve the situation and certainly don't demonstrate the independant occurance of information. I will throw in a third for good measure: Conservation is a universal physical truth. We live in a lazy universe. Things don't do anything more than they absolutely have to and even then they don't keep going they wear down.
Thanks for letting me gripe....
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 04. June 2004 02:30
Thanks, Jonathan, for your accidental appearance. Not many a people stay here. I can listen you even if you whisper somewhere. This is possible because we're an intelligent designs. We can see planets, stars, galaxies…appreciating, also with antisymmetric spaces in between because they themselves are intelligent designs. Organization within Homo sapiens makes this existence valid at that moment. Other organizations define intelligence on their own existence. There would be no end in this duo. But there is always an absolute jury who decides on. The system that spends least energy (Hamiltonian concept) in their journeys to exist without any compromise enjoying degrees of freedom is the higher organization; no matter how he manages and whatever its approach becomes apparent, mental or physical!!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 04. June 2004 19:31
Thanks.. er.. I think. LOL. Man my hair was pushed back by that post. I didn't follow you. This doesn't mean your statements weren't very cool. I just didn't catch it. LOL.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 05. June 2004 14:30
I hope it is not so shocking. This is an extract from the above model.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 05. June 2004 18:38
WE LOVE YOU DUTCH!!! SO LONG :-(
Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 08. June 2004 23:41
Yes, Buddy. But in my context i couldn,t make out your Dutch link!! I couldn't catch it in my search through net.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 09. June 2004 07:29
Here, one should be honest to express what he mean by ‘Intelligent Design’. Gist of today’s I mentioned in “Comments on Irreducible Complexity Revisited – William A Dembski” in Brainstorm (27.01.04). I hope that before facing the next one should go into my work. I am thankful to our society as it is kept in Writer’s Workshop.
Principal deductions in this model arise not linearly but along aesthetics based on symmetry. It is exact fitment of structures with its form, two orthogonal Möbius groups. This is C-symmetry that remains hidden in Fractal Dimensional world. It is convincingly feasible if one starts from its Ontogeny, i.e. Initial period doubling at Bigbang and Bigcrunch. But it is more fascinating to me if one starts at present moment. In both the cases period bifurcates in Real and Imaginary arms. Reals exist in Classical world and Imaginaries exist in quantum world. And their fusions are always an Invariants – proper times or ‘0’-symmetry. It is the Null to which one’s approach is always along complexity (absolute conservation of Real and Imaginary). Nevertheless, existence is a steady state. In present moment at event horizon, in association space, one can creates all its past and future instantaneously by stimulating underlying Null.
In self-designing, one instead of dissecting biological complexity within, may love to cognate the surrounding Nature without. Here its finite frame represents the cosmos with its infinite elements in its phase space. Or, Cosmology is symmetric to one’s own Biological (Macroscopic Quantum System) design in present moment. In Classical world space heads on one’s entropy (Real as Prime) and time, fused spaces of rest all existences, tails on its negentropy (Imaginary as Antiprime). In quantum world present time (biological clock), heads on negentropy and space i.e. fused times of rest all existences from Bigbang to Bigcrunch, tails on entropy.
“At least human mind can separate space-time into space and time. It can recall the part either space in the form of specific sheet (visionary field) or time in the form of specific point on thread (feeling field). But, executing such phenomena, one to flux out of the strip and stimulate 2D-strip on the desire of the sub-system. On the other hand, intelligent design to evolve the initiation should start within the strip with finite flux constrained within a finite segment of the strip iff it appreciates the flux by staying on Null within the flux. And to support this dimensional evolution from 2D to 3D (trinary that handles two number systems plus Null as well) 2D strip rearranges itself by turning further by full turn be Möbius strip of 3/2 turn”.
“Species is determined by very specific package of primes (with antiprimes) that is acquired by inheritance in supercoiled form as minimum. During fertilization to become zygote proper time define the system (‘C’ of Julia) by nucleating hierarchically all primes and antiprimes relevant! This model supports extension of nucleation occurs in both ways of time on present moment. Primes & antiprimes denote classical entropy and quantum negentropy of a system. Or, simply, they define null dispositions within a system”. These are milestones along canonical paths fixed on priori on the very birth of the subsystem. Journey on Null involves no energy at all. Its design has no parameters, either linear or nonlinear. So, It is structureless and formless. Existence of subsystem serially enlivens Prime-Antiprime with designs of present moments encountered. Prime-Antiprime composes the background as discrete yet proper snaps that hoard mixed order elements in the world of our common consciousness.
In Uncertainty Principle detection of position more accurately with more energized particles involves more energy waist that results into increased uncertainty in its momentum. Deterministic cognition satisfies no energy waist when it is absolutely pure. And to make this existence valid subsystem must be a MQS on single electron, i.e. the tuning electron in present moment. In the execution of systems entropy-negentropy there is no energy waist. ‘C of Julia’ is expressed geometrically by the gradients of two lines symmetric to asymptote (Fig. 3b). Evolution of species occurs along Hamiltonian path where ‘C of Julia’ tends to ‘0’. Here subsystem enjoys more freedom because of stronger energy excitation to overcome mass excitation in shorter sensory arm. Continuous sub-critical changes occurs within the subsystem in every Plank’s time due to voluntary and systemic activities without disturbing the complex order of the subsystem till a critical point is reached. Here period bifurcation generates new species of next higher order, may be with significant jump. But as this involves all of subsystems the emergence is completely a new species. At the end of my work I kept my proposition in attempt to designate a complexity phenomena in “Search for New Analogy”.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Member # 1270
|
posted 22. June 2004 21:47
The reference to "Dutch" is about the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Dutch was a nick name he was given as a boy.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic