The photon interaction, however, constitutes a
time-differentiating operation imposed upon 4-dimensional Minkowskian
reality (which is unperceived reality), producing three-dimensional, objective, determined, past reality.
Photon absorption
constitutes dimensional differentiation of reality, while photon
emission constitutes dimensional integration. Objective concepts have
been developed in correspondence to the photon interaction.
In the two-slit experiment, the electron is
4-dimensional, not 3-dimensional. When shielded against the photon
interaction, it remains four-dimensional, possessing its time dimension, and capable of interacting in a time-like manner.
By wavelength one refers inversely to a time interval.
Synchronization
of time intervals between slit dimensions and electron
wavelength results in time interaction between the electron’s time
dimension and the time dimension of the two slits . Thus the electron
interacts with both slits if shielded against the
photon interaction, and time waves are propagated forward from both
slits. If the slits are made much larger, time synchronization is
destroyed and the classical effect reappears . If the photon interaction
is imposed upon the electron, it is time-differentiated
and becomes a classical object , having lost its time dimension.
When the electron encounters the screen, it meets a
region of randomly varying time oscillations of the orbital electrons
around the individual atoms comprising the screen . Thus the exact
location of the orbital electron in the screen
which will first precisely time-synchronize with the electron
wavelength reciprocally is a random choice , and the “place” where the
electron hits the screen is randomly selected along the screen, when the
electron is four dimensional. The time pattern of
the 4-d electron , however, had a distribution induced by its previous
time interaction with the two slits . The pattern of this time
distribution is wavelike, and is recovered when the distribution of the
number of electron hits per screen length (which
involves cumulation over time) is plotted .
Thus the two-slit experiment can be explained once
the fourth law of logic is comprehended , and once the dimensionality of
the electron and other parts of the experimental apparatus are taken
into account.
The author points out that ordinary instruments
and devices can be made to process entities in the unseparated state
(multi-ocular state) , as demonstrated by the two-slit apparatus itself .
Some consequences of this fact are mentioned, and the author refers to a basic mechanism he has proposed for the deliberate and controlled violation of objective reality
.
What is normally referred to as the "conscious, thinking mind" is simply a functioning temporal (rigorously, chronotopological) mechanism that is painfully built up in the individual's awareness (his mind in the greater sense of both thought and awareness, whether monocular or multiocular) by training, conditioning and experience. Its functioning is largely conditioned by one's 90% or so attention to visual stimuli (to the partial reality remaining after photon interaction has been invoked, and to the memory-collated ordering of vast numbers of such photon interactions) and by one's cultural conditioning - which itself has been almost exclusively conditioned and shaped by the monocular photon interaction at base root.
Thus, since the beginning of man, (Bearden radically overstates the case here. It would be more accurate to say that since a time definite in the western epoch) his conscious, rational mind has been trained and constructed to function almost exclusively in basic correspondence with the photon interaction, and his experiential reality consists of the partial reality stripped from fundamental reality by photon interaction.
All "perceived differences," e.g., are created by this deep mind-set. As has been previously pointed out, 6 the solitary human problem responsible for all man's inhumanity to his fellow man is directly dependent upon man's almost exclusive detection, observation, perception, and conception of "difference" between humans, these "differences" being due exclusively and totally to the fitting of men's conscious minds to the photon interaction's monocular separation of spatial reality from nonspatial reality, i.e., to
∂/∂T (L3T) => L3
Such well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, photon interaction also is responsible for the scientist's well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, the present imperfect and incomplete three laws of logic, as presented by Aristotle. The depth of that devotion and enslavement is evidenced by the fact that the resolution of such paradoxes as Heraclitus's problem of change have eluded the best minds of humanity for several thousands of years. Indeed, these paradoxes cannot be resolved by the conscious, rational mind in its present state, for it has been most firmly constructed and fitted to function in accordance with the photon interaction.7 One cannot hope to resolve any logical paradox by using only those same logical methods that found the situation to be paradoxical in the first place!
feldenkrais-ip | He based this work on a behavioral study of human beings that gave rise to
the concept of using unconscious or instinctive responses for
self-preservation. In other words, he wanted to design a self-defense
system for the Haganah, based on “a movement someone would do without thinking.”7
Feldenkrais mentioned this concept in the introduction to his
translation of Emile Coué’s book, Self Mastery Through
Conscious Autosuggestion. Feldenkrais’ background as a survivor gave him
a unique perspective on the practical use of judo in an emergency
situation, outside the dojo. At the time, it was a rare judoka who
thought about the use of judo for self-defense.8 We see Moshe’s interest in survival throughout his development of the Feldenkrais Method. As he said years later, “The most drastic test of a movement is self-preservation.”9
From a close reading of Better Judo we will also get a preview of Feldenkrais’ intellectualism. “In
those days judo/jujutsu was an art of self-defense. Thanks to Dr. Moshe
Feldenkrais it gained a scientific and more sophisticated facet. The
Japanese art was increasingly seen as a science of combat practiced by
intellectuals, university students, scholars…Moshe played a pivotal role
in this evolution [of judo] from a utilitarian practice to a scientific
one.”10 [Fig 1] Feldenkrais became involved with judo
when he met its founder Professor Jigoro Kano in Paris in September of
1933. This was not merely a meeting between two giants; it was an event
that would lead to a dramatic change in the direction and trajectory of
Feldenkrais’ thinking. In his famous 1977 interview about martial arts,
Moshe recalled that Kano had said to him that judo is “the efficient use of the mind over the body.”11
At
the time, Moshe had thought that this was a funny way to describe a
martial art. During their initial meeting, Moshe was introduced to the
concept of seiryoku zenyo (minimum efort, maximum eficiency). Kano
challenged Moshe with a judo choking technique. Moshe attempted to free
himself using the technique that had always worked for him, but this
time it did not help him. As Kano described in his diary: “I
grabbed him in a tight reverse cross with both hands and said, ‘Try to
get out of this!’ He pushed my throat with his fist with all his might.
He was quite strong, so my throat was in some pain, but I pressed on his
carotid arteries on both sides with both hands so the blood could not
get to his head, and he gave up.
Imagine a small Japanese man, at the age of 75, subduing a strong,
young man of 29. This incident impressed Feldenkrais and changed his
approach to the use of his own body. [Fig 2]
Feldenkrais began to study judo and in a relatively short time was
promoted to black belt. More than a skillful practitioner of the art, he
proved to be a unique judo teacher of the highest quality. Kano had a
great deal of faith in Moshe.13 Supported by Kano’s
authority, and through his own considerable abilities, Moshe became the
leading judo teacher in France. Moshe’s influence on the development of
the martial art in France was extraordinary, earning him the title “Pionnier du Judo en France.”14 As
Moshe became more expert at judo, he learned from and cooperated with
the judo master Mikinosuke Kawaishi. This partnership gave Feldenkrais
the background to later write two judo books. He wrote in the forward
of Higher Judo: “I wish to express my gratitude to my friend and
teacher of many years, Mr. Mikinosuke Kawaishi, 7th Dan. The figures in
the illustrations in this book represent him and myself.”15
kodokanjudoinstitute | "This concept of the best use of energy is the fundamental teaching
of Judo. In other words, it is most effectively using one's energy for a
good purpose. So, what is 'good'? Assisting in the continued
development of one's community can be classified as good, but
counteracting such advancement is bad... Ongoing advancement of
community and society is achieved through the concepts of 'Sojo-Sojo'
(help one another; yield to one another) or 'Jita-Kyoei' (mutual
benefit). In this sense, Sojo-Sojo and Jita-Kyoei are also part of the
greater good. This is the fundamental wisdom of Judo.
Kata and Randori are possible when this fundamental wisdom is applied
to techniques of attack and defence. If directed at improving the body,
it becomes a form of physical education; if applied to gaining
knowledge, it will become a method of self-improvement; and, if applied
to many things in society such as the necessities of life, social
interaction, one's duties, and administration, it becomes a way of
life...
In this way, Judo today is not simply the practice of fighting in a
dojo, but rather it is appropriately recognised as a guiding principle
in the myriad facets of human society. The practice of Kata and Randori
in the dojo, is no more than the application of Judo principles to
combat and physical training... From the study of traditional Jujutsu
Kata and Randori, I came to the realisation of this greater meaning.
Accordingly, the process of teaching also follows the same path.
Furthermore, I recognised the value of teaching Kata and Randori to many
people as a fighting art and as a form of physical training. This not
only serves the aims of the individual, but by mastery of the
fundamental wisdom of Judo, and in turn applying it to many pursuits in
life, all people will be able to live their lives in a judicious manner.
This is how one should undertake the study of Judo that I founded.
However, in actuality there are many people throughout the world living
their lives on the basis of Judo principles without knowing that this is
the real essence of Judo. If the Judo that I espouse is propagated to
society at large, the actions people undertake will become Judo without
even thinking about it. I believe that if more people gain an
understanding of the guiding principles of Judo, this philosophy will
also help guide their lives. Thus, I implore you all to make great
efforts, and initiate this trend in society." *2
archive.is |Musean hypernumbers
are an algebraic concept envisioned by Charles A. Musès
(1919–2000) to form a complete, integrated, connected, and natural number system.[1][2][3][4][5]
Musès sketched certain fundamental types of hypernumbers and arranged them in ten "levels", each with its own associated arithmetic
and geometry.
Mostly
criticized for lack of mathematical rigor and unclear defining
relations, Musean hypernumbers are often perceived as an unfounded
mathematical speculation. This impression was not helped by Musès'
outspoken confidence in applicability to fields far beyond what one
might expect from a number system, including consciousness, religion,
and metaphysics.
The term "M-algebra" was used by Musès for investigation into a subset of his hypernumber concept (the 16 dimensional conic
sedenions
and certain subalgebras thereof), which is at times confused with the
Musean hypernumber level concept itself. The current article separates
this well-understood "M-algebra" from the remaining controversial
hypernumbers, and lists certain applications envisioned by the inventor.
Musès was convinced that the basic laws of
arithmetic
on the reals are in direct correspondence with a concept where numbers
could be arranged in "levels", where fewer arithmetical laws would be
applicable with increasing level number.[3]
However, this concept was not developed much further beyond the initial
idea, and defining relations for most of these levels have not been
constructed.
Higher-dimensional numbers built on the first three levels were called "M-algebra"[6][7]
by Musès if they yielded a distributive
multiplication, unit element, and multiplicative norm. It contains kinds of
octonions
and historical quaternions
(except A. MacFarlane's hyperbolic quaternions) as subalgebras. A proof of completeness of M-algebra has not been provided.
The term "M-algebra" (after C. Musès[6]) refers to number systems that are
vector spaces
over the reals,
whose bases consist in roots of −1 or +1, and which possess a
multiplicative modulus. While the idea of such numbers was far from new
and contains many known isomorphic number systems (like e.g.
split-complex
numbers or tessarines),
certain results from 16 dimensional (conic) sedenions were a novelty.
Musès demonstrated the existence of a logarithm and real powers in
number systems built to non-real roots of +1.
cheniere | In the light of other past
researches, we were very much attracted when we first saw his typescript last
year, by the author's perceptive treatment of the operational‑theoretic
significance of measurement, in relation to the broader question of the meaning
of negative entropy. Several years ago 1 we had constructed a pilot
model of an electro‑mechanical machine we described as the Critical Probability
Sequence Calculator, designed and based on considerations stemming from the
mathematical principles of a definite discipline which we later2
called chronotopology: the topological (not excluding quantitative relations)
and most generalized analysis of the temporal process, of all time series ‑ the
science of time so to speak. To use a popular word in a semi‑popular sense, the
CPSC was a 'time‑machine,' as its input data consist solely of known past
times, and its output solely of most probable future times. That is, like the
Hamiltonian analysis of action in this respect, its operation was concerned
only with more general quantities connected with the structure of the temporal
process itself, rather than with the nature of the particular events or
occurrences involved or in question, although it can tell us many useful things
about those events. However, as an analogue computer, it was built simply to demonstrate
visibly the operation of interdependences already much more exactly stated as
chronotopological relationships.
That situations themselves should have
general laws of temporal structure, quite apart from their particular contents,
is a conclusion that must be meaningful to the working scientist; for it is but
a special example of the truth of scientific abstraction, and a particularly
understandable one in the light of the modern theory of games, which is a
discipline that borders on chronotopology.
One of the bridges from ordinary
physics to chronotopology is the bridge on which Rothstein's excellent analyses
also lie: the generalized conception of entropy. And in some of what follows we
will summarize what we wrote in 1951 in the paper previously referred to, and
in other places. We will dispense with any unnecessary apologies for the
endeavor to make the discussion essentially understandable to the intelligent
layman.
Modern studies in communication theory
(and communications are perhaps the heart of our present civilization) involve
time series in a manner basic to their assumptions. A great deal of 20th
century interest is centering on the more and more exact use and measurement of
time intervals. Ours might be epitomized as the Century of Time‑for only since
the 1900's has so much depended on split‑second timing and the accurate
measurement of that timi ng in fields ranging from electronics engineering to
fast‑lens photography.
Another reflection of the importance
of time in our era is the emphasis on high speeds, i.e. minimum time intervals
for action, and thus more effected in less time. Since power can be measured by
energy‑release per time‑unit, the century of time becomes, and so it has
proved, the Century of Power. To the responsible thinker such an equation is
fraught with profound and significant consequences for both science and
humanity. Great amounts of energy delivered in minimal times demand
a) extreme accuracy of knowledge and
knowledgeapplication concerning production of the phenomena,
b)
full understanding of the nature and genesis of the phenomena involved; since
at such speeds and at such amplitudes of energy a practically irrevocable,
quite easily disturbing set of consequences is assured. That we have mastered
(a) more than (b) deserves at least this parenthetical mention. And yet there
is a far‑reaching connection between the two, whereby any more profound
knowledge will inevitably lead in turn to a sounder basis for actions stemming
from that knowledge.
No longer is it enough simply to take
time for granted and merely apportion and program it in a rather naively
arbitrary fashion. Time must be analyzed, and its nature probed for whatever it
may reveal in the way of determinable sequences of critical probabilities. The
analysis of time per se is due to
become, in approximate language, quite probably a necessity for us as a
principal mode of attack by our science on its own possible shortcomings. For
with our present comparatively careening pace of technical advance and action,
safety factors, emergent from a thorough study and knowledge of the nature of
this critical quantity 'time,' are by that very nature most enabled to be the
source of what is so obviously lacking in our knowledge on so many advanced
levels: adequate means of controlling consequences and hence direction of
advance.
Chronotopology (deriving from Chronos + topos + logia) is the study of
the intra‑connectivity of time (including the inter‑connectivity of time points
and intervals), the nature or structure of time, 0 if you will; how it is
contrived in its various ways of formation and how those structures function,
in operation and interrelation.
It is simple though revealing, and it
is practically important to the development of our subject, to appreciate that
seconds, minutes, days, years, centuries, et
al., are not time, but merely the measures of time; that they are no more
time than rulers are what they measure. Of the nature and structure of time
itself investigations have been all but silent. As with many problems lying at
the foundations of our thought and procedures, it has been taken for granted
and thereby neglected ‑ as for centuries before the advent mathematical logic
were the foundations of arithmetic. The "but" in the above phrase
"investigations have been all but silent” conveys an indirect point. As
science has advanced, time has had to be used increasingly as a paramimplicitly
(as in the phase spaces of statistical mechanics) or explicitly.
Birkhoff's improved enunciation of the
ergodic problem 3 actually was one of a characteristic set of modern
efforts to associate a structure with time in a formulated manner. Aside from
theoretical interest, those efforts have obtained a wide justification in
practice and in terms of the greater analytic power they conferred. They lead
directly to chronotopological conceptions as their ideational destination and
basis.
The discovery of the exact formal
congruence of a portion of the theory of probability (that for stochastic
processes) with a portion of the theory of general dynamics is another
significant outcome of those efforts. Such a congruence constitutes more or less suggestion that probability
theory has been undergoing, ever since its first practical use as the theory of
probable errors by astronomy, a gradual metamorphosis into the actual study of
governing time‑forces and their configurations, into chronotopology. And the
strangely privileged character of the time parameter in quantum mechanics is
well known – another fact pointing in the same direction.
Now
Birkhoff's basic limit theorem may be analyzed as a consequence of the second
law of thermodynamics, since all possible states of change of a given system
will become exhausted with increase of entropy 4 as time proceeds.
It is to the credit of W.. S. Franklin to have been the firstspecifically to point out 5 that
the second law of thermodynamics "relates to the inevitable forward
movement which we call time"; not clock‑time, however, but time more
clearly exhibiting its nature, and measured by what Eddington has termed an
entropy‑clock 6. When we combine this fact with the definition of
increase of entropy established by Boltzmann, Maxwell, and Gibbs as progression
from less to more probable states, we can arrive at a basic theorem in chronotopology:
T1, The movement of time is
an integrated movement toward regions of ever‑increasing probability.
Corollary: It is thus a selective movement in a sense to be
determined by a more accurate understanding of probability, and in what
'probability' actually consists in any given situation.
This theorem, supported by modern
thermodynamic theory, indicates that it would no longer be correct for the
Kantian purely subjective view of time entirely to dominate modern scientific
thinking, as it has thus far tended to do since Mach. Rather, a truer balance
of viewpoint is indicated whereby time, though subjectively effective too,
nevertheless possesses definite structural and functional characteristics which
can be formulated quantitatively. We shall eventually see that time may be
defined as the ultimate causal pattern of all energy‑release and that this
release is of an oscillatory nature. To put it more popularly, there are time
waves.
edge | Because we use the word queen—the Egyptians use the word king—we have
a misconception of the role of the queen in the society. The queen is
usually the only reproductive in a honey bee colony. She’s specialized
entirely to that reproductive role. It’s not that she’s any way
directing the society; it’s more accurate to say that the behavior and
activity of the queen is directed by the workers. The queen is
essentially an egg-laying machine. She is fed unlimited high-protein,
high-carbohydrate food by the nurse bees that tend to her. She is
provided with an array of perfectly prepared cells to lay eggs in. She
will lay as many eggs as she can, and the colony will raise as many of
those eggs as they can in the course of the day. But the queen is not
ruling the show. She only flies once in her life. She will leave the
hive on a mating flight; she’ll be mated by up to twenty male bees, in
the case of the honey bee, and then she stores that semen for the rest
of her life. That is the role of the queen. She is the reproductive, but
she is not the ruler of the colony.
Many societies have attached this sense of royalty, and I think that
as much reflects that we see the order inside the honey bee society and
we assume that there must be some sort of structure that maintains that
order. We see this one individual who is bigger and we anthropomorphize
that that somehow must be their leader. But no, there is no way that
it’s appropriate to say that the queen has any leadership role in a
honey bee society.
A honey bee queen would live these days two to three years, and it's
getting shorter. It’s not that long ago that if you read the older
books, they would report that queens would live up to seven years. We’re
not seeing queens last that long now. It’s more common for queens to be
replaced every two to three years. All the worker honey bees are female
and the queen is female—it’s a matriarchal society.
An even more recent and exciting revolution happening now is this
connectomic revolution, where we’re able to map in exquisite detail the
connections of a part of the brain, and soon even an entire insect
brain. It’s giving us absolute answers to questions that we would have
debated even just a few years ago; for example, does the insect brain
work as an integrated system? And because we now have a draft of a
connectome for the full insect brain, we can absolutely answer that
question. That completely changes not just the questions that we’re
asking, but our capacity to answer questions. There’s a whole new
generation of questions that become accessible.
When I say a connectome, what I mean is an absolute map of the
neural connections in a brain. That’s not a trivial problem. It's okay
at one level to, for example with a light microscope, get a sense of the
structure of neurons, to reconstruct some neurons and see where they
go, but knowing which neurons connect with other neurons requires
another level of detail. You need electron microscopy to look at the
synapses.
The main question I’m asking myself at the moment is about the nature
of the animal mind, and how minds and conscious minds evolved. The
perspective I’m taking on that is to try to examine the mind's
mechanisms of behavior in organisms that are far simpler than ours.
I’ve got a particular focus on insects, specifically on the honey
bee. For me, it remains a live question as to whether we can think of
the honey bee as having any kind of mind, or if it's more appropriate to
think of it as something more mechanistic, more robotic. I tend to lean
towards thinking of the honey bee as being a conscious agent, certainly
a cognitively effective agent. That’s the biggest question I’m
exploring for myself.
There’s always been an interest in animals, natural history, and
animal behavior. Insects have always had this particular point of
tension because they are unusually inaccessible compared to so many
other animals. When we look at things like mammals and dogs, we are so
drawn to empathize with them that it tends to mask so much. When we’re
looking at something like an insect, they’re doing so much, but their
faces are completely expressionless and their bodies are completely
alien to ours. They operate on a completely different scale. You cannot
empathize or emote. It’s not immediately clear what they are, whether
they’re an entity or whether they’re a mechanism.
Forbes | Throughout the history of science, one of
the prime goals of making sense of the Universe has been to discover
what's fundamental. Many of the things we observe and interact with in
the modern, macroscopic world are composed of, and can be derived from,
smaller particles and the underlying laws that govern them. The idea
that everything is made of elements dates back thousands of years, and
has taken us from alchemy to chemistry to atoms to subatomic particles
to the Standard Model, including the radical concept of a quantum
Universe.
But even though there's very good evidence that all of the
fundamental entities in the Universe are quantum at some level, that
doesn't mean that everything is both discrete and quantized. So long as
we still don't fully understand gravity at a quantum level, space and
time might still be continuous at a fundamental level. Here's what we
know so far.
Quantum mechanics is the idea that, if you go down to a small enough
scale, everything that contains energy, whether it's massive (like an
electron) or massless (like a photon), can be broken down into
individual quanta. You can think of these quanta as energy packets,
which sometimes behave as particles and other times behave as waves,
depending on what they interact with.
Everything in nature obeys the laws of quantum physics, and our
"classical" laws that apply to larger, more macroscopic systems can
always (at least in theory) be derived, or emerge, from the more
fundamental quantum rules. But not everything is necessarily discrete,
or capable of being divided into a localized region space.
The energy level
differences in Lutetium-177. Note how there are only specific, discrete
energy levels that are acceptable. While the energy levels are discrete,
the positions of the electrons are not.
If you have a conducting band of metal, for example, and ask "where
is this electron that occupies the band," there's no discreteness there.
The electron can be anywhere, continuously, within the band. A free
photon can have any wavelength and energy; no discreteness there. Just
because something is quantized, or fundamentally quantum in nature,
doesn't mean everything about it must be discrete.
The idea that space (or space and time, since they're inextricably
linked by Einstein's theories of relativity) could be quantized goes way
back to Heisenberg himself. Famous for the Uncertainty Principle, which
fundamentally limits how precisely we can measure certain pairs of
quantities (like position and momentum), Heisenberg realized that
certain quantities diverged, or went to infinity, when you tried to
calculate them in quantum field theory.
universal-tao | An introduction to the ancient Kung Fu practice designed to unify physical, mental, and spiritual health:
Describes the unique Iron Shirt air-packing techniques that protect vital organs from injuries
Explains the rooting practice exercises necessary to stabilize and center oneself
Includes guidelines for building an Iron Shirt Chi Kung daily practice
Long before the advent of firearms, Iron Shirt Chi Kung,
a form of Kung Fu, built powerful bodies able to withstand
hand-to-hand combat. Even then, however, martial use was only one
aspect of Iron Shirt Chi Kung, and today its other aspects remain
vitally significant for anyone seeking better health, a sound mind,
and spiritual growth.
In Iron Shirt Chi Kung Master Mantak Chia
introduces this ancient practice that strengthens the internal organs,
establishes roots to the earth’s energy, and unifies physical,
mental, and spiritual health. Through a unique system of breathing
exercises, he demonstrates how to permanently pack concentrated air
into the connective tissues (the fasciae) surrounding vital organs,
making them nearly impervious to injuries--a great benefit to athletes
and other performers. He shows readers how once they root themselves
in the earth they can direct its gravitational and healing power
throughout their bone structure. Additionally, Master Chia presents
postural forms, muscle-tendon meridians, and guidelines for developing
a daily practice routine. After becoming rooted and responsive,
practitioners of Iron Shirt Chi Kung can then focus on higher
spiritual work. Full Text.
DopamineHegemony | The team behind the discovery suggest the compartments may act as “shock absorbers” that protect body tissues from damage.
Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center
medics Dr David Carr-Locke and Dr Petros Benias came across the
interstitium while investigating a patient’s bile duct, searching for
signs of cancer.
They noticed cavities that did not match any previously
known human anatomy, and approached New York University pathologist Dr
Neil Theise to ask for his expertise.
The researchers realised traditional methods for examining
body tissues had missed the interstitium because the “fixing” method for
assembling medical microscope slides involves draining away fluid –
therefore destroying the organ’s structure.
Instead of their true identity as bodywide, fluid-filled
shock absorbers, the squashed cells had been overlooked and considered a
simple layer of connective tissue.
Having arrived at this conclusion, the scientists realised
this structure was found not only in the bile duct, but surrounding many
crucial internal organs.
“This fixation artefact of collapse has made a fluid-filled
tissue type throughout the body appear solid in biopsy slides for
decades, and our results correct for this to expand the anatomy of most
tissues,” said Dr Theise.
nautil.us | Meanwhile, over the last four decades, the winds have shifted, as
often happens in science as researchers pursue the best questions to
ask. Enormous projects, like those of the Allen Institute for Brain
Science and the Brain-Mind Institute of the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, seek to understand the structure and function of the brain
in order to answer many questions, including what consciousness is in
the brain and how it is generated, right down to the neurons. A whole
field, behavioral economics, has sprung up to describe and use the ways
in which we are unconscious of what we do—a major theme in Jaynes’
writing—and the insights netted its founders, Daniel Kahneman and Vernon
L. Smith, the Nobel Prize.
Eric Schwitzgebel, a professor of
philosophy at University of California, Riverside, has conducted
experiments to investigate how aware we are of things we are not focused
on, which echo Jaynes’ view that consciousness is essentially
awareness. “It’s not unreasonable to have a view that the only things
you’re conscious of are things you are attending to right now,”
Schwitzgebel says. “But it’s also reasonable to say that there’s a lot
going on in the background and periphery. Behind the focus, you’re
having all this experience.” Schwitzgebel says the questions that drove
Jaynes are indeed hot topics in psychology and neuroscience. But at the
same time, Jaynes’ book remains on the scientific fringe. “It would
still be pretty far outside of the mainstream to say that ancient Greeks
didn’t have consciousness,” he says.
Dennett, who has called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
a “marvelous, wacky book,” likes to give Jaynes the benefit of the
doubt. “There were a lot of really good ideas lurking among the
completely wild junk,” he says. Particularly, he thinks Jaynes’
insistence on a difference between what goes on in the minds of animals
and the minds of humans, and the idea that the difference has its
origins in language, is deeply compelling.
“[This] is a view I
was on the edge of myself, and Julian kind of pushed me over the top,”
Dennett says. “There is such a difference between the consciousness of a
chimpanzee and human consciousness that it requires a special
explanation, an explanation that heavily invokes the human distinction
of natural language,” though that’s far from all of it, he notes. “It’s
an eccentric position,” he admits wryly. “I have not managed to sway the
mainstream over to this.”
It’s a credit to Jaynes’ wild ideas that, every now and then, they
are mentioned by neuroscientists who study consciousness. In his 2010
book, Self Comes to Mind, Antonio Damasio, a professor of
neuroscience, and the director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at
the University of Southern California, sympathizes with Jaynes’ idea
that something happened in the human mind in the relatively recent past.
“As knowledge accumulated about humans and about the universe,
continued reflection could well have altered the structure of the
autobiographical self and led to a closer stitching together of
relatively disparate aspects of mind processing; coordination of brain
activity, driven first by value and then by reason, was working to our
advantage,” he writes. But that’s a relatively rare endorsement. A more
common response is the one given by neurophilosopher Patricia S.
Churchland, an emerita professor at the University of California, San
Diego. “It is fanciful,” she says of Jaynes’ book. “I don’t think that
it added anything of substance to our understanding of the nature of
consciousness and how consciousness emerges from brain activity.”
Jaynes
himself saw his theory as a scientific contribution, and was
disappointed with the research community’s response. Although he enjoyed
the public’s interest in his work, tilting at these particular
windmills was frustrating even for an inveterate contrarian. Jaynes’
drinking grew heavier. A second book, which was to have taken the ideas
further, was never completed.
And so, his legacy, odd as it is,
lives on. Over the years, Dennett has sometimes mentioned in his talks
that he thought Jaynes was on to something. Afterward—after the crowd
had cleared out, after the public discussion was over—almost every time
there would be someone hanging back. “I can come out of the closet now,”
he or she would say. “I think Jaynes is wonderful too.”
dailymail |Colin Kaepernick's MTV star girlfriend compares Baltimore Ravens
owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave master after he opposes signing
quarterback
Nessa Diab,
36, compared Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave master
and Ray Lewis to a senior house slave on Twitter Thursday
She
posted the controversial tweet after both Bisciotti and Lewis publicly
criticized Kaepernick's non-violent protest of the national anthem
Bisciotti
decided to hand over the decision to the fans and some trusted advisers
and determine if it was a good move to add Kaepernick, 29, to the
Ravens
The owner previously signed
Dante Stallworth after he did time for DUI manslaughter and let Ray Rice
play for seven months after he abused his fiancee
The
Baltimore Ravens had been considering signing Kaepernick as a possible
second string quarterback who would start for Joe Flacco on opening day
Kaepernick
has a better passer rating than Flacco, and his 88.9 ranks him 11th in
the NFL among active players, but he remains a free agent
I'm an aggressor. I have a knife. Knives are never meant to be seen, only
felt. Not only can I model my desired aggression toward you in pictures,
words, and even movements, I can engage in active deception so that you
never see that knife attack coming. I don't believe there are any
animals capable of that complex mix of behaviors. Sure there's
deception, sure there's aggressive play and practice, but nothing even
remotely approaching the complex systematic, formal and premeditated
instrumental behavior I'm describing above.
Now if I were
blessedly more naive about how such things go, I might model in my
mind's eye displaying the knife like a poor simple creature
instinctively engaging in threat displays in hopes of scaring you off,
which threat displays mask its underlying real instinctual aversion to lethal violence.
Fourteen years ago on the afrofuturism list, I offered the ancient anecdote about Sack's aphasic patients sitting in the common
lounge watching Ronald Reagan deliver a speech. To a person, these language-disordered patients were
amazed by the paradox of the actor's facial expressions and body
language conveying a message totally at odds with what was coming out of
his mouth. They could directly observe both the unspoken intention and
the contrasting spoken deceptions. We all have this capability to varying degrees. My own liminal acuity (perception of facial or body language contradiction) is off the chart.
So it is with longstanding, consistent, and finely-honed trepidation that I spy out the corner of my eye the most recent speech as violence perpetrations emanating from a longtime, consistent, and influential source the NYTimes: When
the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help
account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view
to be repugnant and misguided, but it’s only offensive. It is offered as
a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade.
Milo Yiannopoulos is compared and contrasted in the same article as a genuine perpetrator of "speech as violence". That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a
provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your
school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is
nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is
offering.
With regard to Milo Yiannopoulos and the alt-right - there are few better example of the use of words as "virtue-signal" for collective violence. It's a very good thing that this cohort is demographically composed of untermensch. The alt-right is busily wallowing in the joys of formerly forbidden memetic signification within its demography. Keyboard warriors, one-and-all, these gamma males are living a bronetic Weimar Germany/MS-13 fantasy from the safety of their mothers' basements. Anonymous bad-talk through keyboards is not the same thing as MS-13 face tattoos.
Within MS-13, serial killers openly signify within their community of interest exactly what they're on about. A better example of "speech" as violence with an underlying ethological analog would be pretty hard to find. I would equate that signification to a brightly colored poisonous reptile advertising its venom, with the difference being that the gang-member has agency over its advert while the venomous reptile does not.
Yiannopoulos and Murray are each mentioned in the article, with the former given as an example of an
intentional provocateur and the latter as an example of a public
intellectual. From the perspective of "speech as violence" the now
ruined and discredited Yiannopoulos was never anything more than a
D-list gadfly. Murray, on the other hand, falls somewhere between
professional political propagandist and un-indicted war criminal -
imnsho.
Calling
Charles Murray "merely a political scientist" when in fact he was an
anthropologist studying, developing, and implementing large-scale
counter-insurgency methods in Vietnam, which methods he turned around
- and with substantial political backing - promoted aggressively in the
U.S. - is more than a little disingenuous. Charles Murray has always both intended
and practiced severe rhetorical violence against both real and imagined
enemies. The fact that his pseudo-academic deceptions are even more refined and
subtle than Ronald Reagan's thespian deceptions - (wonder what the aphasics who saw through Reagan's talk/expression contradictions would make of Murray?) doesn't make them any
the less premeditated, systematic, or violent.
Murray has always
known full-well that a knife is never meant to be seen, only felt. So
did President Reagan or at least his speech writers and handlers...,
wikipedia |Systema (Система, literally meaning The System) is a Russian martial art.[1]
Training includes, but is not limited to: hand-to-hand combat,
grappling, knife fighting, and firearms training. Training involves
drills and sparring without set kata.
In Systema, the body has to be free of tensions, filled with endurance,
flexibility, effortless movement, and explosive potential; the "spirit"
or psychological state has to be calm, free of anger, irritation, fear,
self-pity, delusion, and pride.[2]
Systema focuses on breathing, relaxation, and fluidity of movement,
as well as utilizing an attacker's momentum against him and controlling
the six body levers (elbows, neck, knees, waist, ankles, and shoulders)
through pressure point
application, striking, and weapon applications. As a discipline, it is
becoming more and more popular among police and security forces and it
is taught by several practitioners inside and outside Russia.
wikipedia | The Russian girya (ги́ря, a loanword from Persian غران girān "heavy") was a type of metal weight, primarily used to weigh crops, in the 18th century. The use of such weights by circus strongmen is recorded for the 19th century. They began to be used for recreational and competition strength athletics in Russia and Europe in the late 19th century. The birth of competitive kettlebell lifting or girevoy sport
(гиревой спорт) is dated to 1885, with the foundation of the founding
year of the "Circle for Amateur Athlethics" (Кружок любителей атлетики).[2]
Russian kettlebells (Russian: ги́ри giri, singular ги́ря girya) are traditionally measured in weight by pood, corresponding to 16.38 kilograms (36.1 lb).[3] The English term kettle bell has been in use since the early 20th century.[4]
Similar weights used in Classical Greece were the haltere, comparable to the modern kettlebell in terms of movements. Another comparable instrument was used by Shaolin monks in China.
nautilus | In physics, the pressure, temperature, and volume of a gas are known as the state
of a gas. In Boltzmann’s model, any arrangement of atoms or molecules
that produces this state is known as a microstate of the gas. Since the
state of a gas depends on the overall motion of its atoms or molecules,
many microstates can produce the same state. Boltzmann showed that
entropy can be defined as the number of microstates a state has. The
more microstates, the greater the entropy. This explains why the entropy
of a system tends to increase. Over time, a gas is more likely to find
itself in a state with lots of possible microstates than one with few
microstates.
Since entropy increases over time, the early universe must have had much lower entropy. This means the Big Bang
must have had an extraordinarily low entropy. But why would the
primordial state of the universe have such low entropy? Boltzmann’s
theory provides a possible answer. Although higher entropy states are
more likely over time, it is possible for a thermodynamic system to
decrease its entropy. For example, all the air molecules in a room could
just happen to cram together in one corner of the room. It isn’t very
likely, but, statistically, it is possible. The same idea applies
to the universe as a whole: If the primordial cosmos was in
thermodynamic equilibrium, there is a small chance that things came
together to create an extremely low entropy state. That state then
triggered the Big Bang and the universe we see around us.
However,
if the low entropy of the Big Bang was just due to random chance, that
leads to a problem. Infinite monkeys might randomly type out the Complete Works of Shakespeare,
but they would be far more likely to type out the much shorter
Gettysburg Address. Likewise, a low entropy Big Bang could arise out of a
primordial state, but if the universe is a collection of microstates,
then it is more likely to find itself in a conscious state that thinks
it is in a universe rather than the entire physical universe itself.
That is, a Boltzmann brain existing is more probable than a universe
existing. Boltzmann’s theory leads to a paradox, where the very
scientific assumption that we can trust what we observe leads to the
conclusion that we can’t trust what we observe.
Although it’s an
interesting paradox, most astrophysicists don’t think Boltzmann brains
are a real possibility. (Carroll, for instance, mercilessly deems them
“self-undermining and unworthy of serious consideration,” on account of
their cognitive instability.) Instead they look to physical processes
that would solve the paradox. The physical processes that give rise to
the Boltzmann brain possibility are the vacuum energy fluctuations
intrinsic to quantum theory—small energy fluctuations can appear out of
the vacuum. Usually they aren’t noticeable, but under certain conditions
these vacuum fluctuations can lead to things like Hawking radiation and
cosmic inflation in the early universe. These fluctuations were in
thermal equilibrium in the early universe, so they follow the same
random Boltzmann statistics as the primordial cosmos, making them also
more likely to give rise to a Boltzmann brain rather than the universe
we seem to be in.
But it turns out that, since the universe is
expanding, these apparent fluctuations might not be coming from the
vacuum. Instead, as the universe expands, the edge of the observable
universe causes thermal fluctuations to appear, much like the event
horizon of a black hole gives rise to Hawking radiation. This gives the
appearance of vacuum fluctuations, from our point of view. The true
vacuum of space and time isn’t fluctuating, so it cannot create a
Boltzmann brain.
The idea,
from Caltech physicist Kimberly Boddy, and colleagues, is somewhat
speculative, and it has an interesting catch. The argument that the true
vacuum of the universe is stationary relies on a version of quantum
theory known as the many-worlds formulation. In this view, the wave
function of a quantum system doesn’t “collapse” when observed. Rather,
different outcomes of the quantum system “decohere” and simply evolve
along different paths. Where once the universe was a superposition of
different possible outcomes, quantum decoherence creates two definite
outcomes. Of course, if our minds are simply physical states within the
cosmos, our minds are also split into two outcomes, each observing a
particular result.
electoralsystemincrisis |In Electoral System in Crisis, is a 39-page independent in-depth
examination of the accuracy and security of U.S. electronic voting
equipment. This research has been invited for publication in the Journal
of the International Association of Official Statistics(IAOS).
Due to the unusual time constraints of the election cycle, and the
right of the public to have access to this information, the authors are
taking the unusual step of publishing ahead of time online. The full
report is now available online at the website of the lead author; and will be posted in a number of locations including the forum of The American Association for Public Opinion Research, and the forum of Social Research Methods. Below is an exerpt of our findings. We encourage everyone to download and read the full report.
The majority of the data we examined suggests that the two candidates
currently slated to accept their party’s nomination in the 2016
presidential primary races, received a different number of votes than
what has been officially reported.
On the Republican side,
statistical analysis indicates that Donald Trump probably received more
votes than what has been reported and certified. Because he was able to
overcome his opposition, even with the irregularities, his selection as
the presumptive Republican nominee is supported by the data.
As we
stated in the opening, this is not the case on the Democratic side. The
overwhelming majority of the almost two dozen states that we analyzed,
demonstrate irregularities. We found suspect statistical patterns in the
2016 Democratic presidential primary in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West
Virginia. These irregularities were significant, as we demonstrate in
Louisiana, sometimes as large as 36% and could change the outcome of the
election.
In almost every instance the discrepancies favored
Hillary Clinton. In all likelihood the current results have assigned her
a greater percentage of the vote than she may have actually received,
while simultaneously under-reporting Bernie Sanders’ legitimate vote
share.
We intend to report on the percentage that the race may be off, based on a statistical analysis of as many states as possible.
dote | I want to explain a few things. As regular DOTE readers know, I
don't believe that humans are exercising "free will" because there is no
such thing. Thus I am a determinist. Now, when we think about "free will" we (and researchers) naturally think about individuals—his brain, or her brain or, more rarely, my brain.
On the other hand, I've also arrived at the conclusion that the most important stuff going on in the unconscious mind is social in nature. Social instincts (like harmonizing) are hard-wired and therefore wholly automatic, just like fight or flight, negativity bias and
many other processes. Thus it might be more appropriate to think in
terms of groups rather than individuals in so far as humans naturally
and mindlessly form strong social bonds. It is therefore more
appropriate to investigate free will questions at the level of large
populations or social groups.
There is a great deal of superficial variation at the level of
individuals; at the large group level, there are only predictable
behaviors because the unconscious mind has free rein, unencumbered by weak and ultimately deceptive "deliberative" processes in individual minds.
This makes politics the best way to observe human
instinctual (unconscious) behaviors. Politics is simply inter-group
conflict writ large. This year has been very interesting in this regard.
I've written a couple posts lately (here and here)
on the Brexit which have a theme similar to many things I've written
before. The simplified world view of those posts asserts that there are
our ruling elites on the one hand, and basically everybody else on the other.
This simplified view is a caricature of reality, but it's a useful
one. 6000 years of historical data makes it apparent that social
stratification (hierarchy) in large complex human societies is built
right in, so these two broadly defined groups will always exist. By
definition, one of those groups (ruling elites) exercise broad but
onerous control over the other (everybody else). If that control becomes
too oppressive—if there are here & now existential
threats—everybody else, if they are feeling threatened or pinched,
rebels against the political order.
That is the situation we have reached today in Western societies. And
this is where predictable large group behaviors kick in (beyond a more
fundamental social stratification). Let's list a few of the things we've
been able to observe on a large scale in 2016.
I Corinthians 13 | If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
On one occasion while talking with Gurdjieff, I asked him whether he considered it possible to attain 'cosmic consciousness', not for a brief moment only but for a longer period. I understood the expression 'cosmic consciousness' in the sense of a higher consciousness possible for Man in the same way in which I had previously written about it in my book Tertium Organum.
"I do not know what you mean by 'cosmic consciousness'" said G. "It is a vague and indefinite term; anyone can call anything he likes by it. In most cases what is called 'cosmic consciousness' is simply fantasy, associative day-dreaming connected with intensified work of the emotional centre. Sometimes it comes near to ecstasy, but most often it is merely a subjective emotional experience on the level of dreams. But even apart from all this, before we can speak of 'cosmic consciousness' we must define in general what consciousness is. How do you define consciousness?"
"Consciousness is considered to be indefinable", I said, "and indeed, how can it be defined if it is an inner quality? With the ordinary means at our disposal it is impossible to prove the presence of consciousness in another man. We know it only in ourselves."
"All this is rubbish", said G., "the usual scientific sophistry. It is time you got rid of it. Only one thing is true in what you have said: that you can know consciousness only in yourself. Observe that I say 'you can know', for you can know it only when you have it. And when you have not got it, you can know that you have not got it — not at that very moment, but afterwards. I mean that when it comes again you can see that it has been absent a long time, and you can find or remember the moment when it disappeared and when it reappeared.
"You can also define the moments when you are nearer to consciousness and further away from consciousness. But by observing in yourself the appearance and the disappearance of consciousness you will inevitably see one fact which you neither see nor acknowledge now, and that is that moments of consciousness are very short and are separated by long intervals of completely unconscious, mechanical working of the machine.
"You will then see that you can think, feel, act, speak, work, without being conscious of it. And if you learn to see in yourselves the moments of consciousness and the long periods of mechanicalness, you will as infallibly see in other people when they are conscious of what they are doing and when they are not.
"Your principal mistake consists in thinking either that that you always have consciousness, and in general, either that consciousness is always present or that it is never present. In reality consciousness is a property which is continually changing. Now it is present, now it is not present. And there are different degrees and different levels of consciousness. Both consciousness and the different degrees of consciousness must be understood in oneself by sensation, by taste.
"No definitions can help you in this case and no definitions are possible so long as you do not understand what you have to define. And science and philosophy cannot define consciousness because they want to define it where it does not exist. It is necessary to distinguish consciousness from the possibility of consciousness. We have only the possibility of consciousness and rare flashes of it. Therefore we cannot define what consciousness is."
WaPo | According to Google, I am a woman between the ages of 25 and 34 who
speaks English as her primary language and has accumulated an unwieldy
74,486 e-mails in her life. I like cooking, dictionaries and Washington,
D.C. I own a Mac computer that I last accessed at 10:04 p.m. last
night, at which time I had 46 open Chrome tabs. And of the thousands and
thousands of YouTube videos I have watched in my lifetime, a truly
embarrassing number of them concern (a) funny pets or (b) Taylor Swift.
I
didn’t tell Google any of these things intentionally, of course — I
didn’t fill out a profile or enter a form. But even as you search
Google, it turns out, Google is also searching you.
This isn’t exactly new news. Google has, since 2009, published a transparency tool called Dashboard,
which lets users see exactly what kind of data the Internet giant has
on them and from which services. But the issue of data collection has
provoked renewed anxiety of late, perhaps spurred by recent
investigations into personal data and search engines in Europe and Asia —
as well as the high-profile hacking of celebrities’ personal data and
the shadow of last year’s National Security Agency revelations.
According to a recent survey
by the consumer research firm Survata, people care more about Google
accessing their personal electronic data than they do the NSA, their
boss, their parents, or their spouse. Which is unfortunate, given that
your parents and boss will probably never see everything you search,
e-mail and click — while Google logs that material more or less all the
time.
“Google knows quite a lot,” said Ondrej Prostrednik, the author of a recent Medium post about
Google data collection that has begun making the Reddit rounds. “People
outside of Google can only guess. But it is important to realize that
we are the ones giving it all the data they know.”
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
