Principia Discordia

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/clientdiagramjpeg-3.jpg)

Okay, I was thinking, dangerous yes. 

There have been some ideas we've chewed on since this subforum was christened back in 06.  (or whenever it was)

It helps me to visualize some of these metaphors we've talked about and in my mind I've put 3 or 4 of them together. 

This diagram is the "Sphere of Possibility" Yeah, I kind of ripped it off of GSP, but Spheres are so convenient to visualize.  In my mind the "Sphere of Possibility" is the ground we cover in our lifespan.  It's sort of a 3-D axis.  The x-axis is time, the Y and Z axes, I'm not too sure about yet.  But essentially it is what causes us to go in certain directions in our life as time passes.  We cannot escape the march towards death, but we obviously aren't destined to take the Point A to Point B straight-line Expressway.  So with this diagram I am integrating the "Paths" thing I brought up last year.

So then I pose a question.  What causes the "deviations" in the course from birth to death.  Why don't all take the straight A to B route.  In my mind I'm seeing this is where BIP and something like "Shrapnel" come into play.  Maybe one is Y and one is Z.  Not sure.  But certainly BIP is a determining factor as the bars of the cell shape who we are.  And how we are shaped will be one factor in how we behave and negotiate life. 

The "Shrapnel" idea is one I've always seen as a sort of "active-form" of BIP.  Kind of like "Shrapnel" is what happens to you while BIP is what IS you.  Indeed "Shrapnel" could be the contractor that builds your bars.  In any event it would seem these are at least two agents that work to affect the fasion in which we navigate the Sphere of Possibility.

Anyway, tl:dr I know.  So I'll wrap up.  Not sure if this is helpful or useful for anything but it's something I've been chewing on and wanted to throw up. 

One last note, as I mentioned that it is a "Sphere" of Possibility is arbitrary.  Of course since we can never really perceive Everything any True shape cannot be determined.  For all we know it could be a Cube, a Pyramid, Oval, you get the drift.  Okay, stopping. 

Well if the sphere were shiny and metallic, then I'd say the stuff bouncing it around might be a set of cosmic flippers and pinball bumpers ;-)

So, 3 axis graph.  Time (x), space(y)... perception(z)?

"Cabbages" have very small z axis, etc.

So, what causes deviations?

Entropy and choice, I would think.

A SIDS baby would have a fairly straight line, if not a short one.

As the X line increases, randomness presents situations of choice.  The Y influences what probable aspects the randomness takes, as well as the results of choices.  The Z axis is what the User sees as "possible".... That is, the range of choices.

Adjust the parameters on any of the axis, and the other two change.

Small X = small Z

Small Z = Small Y

or something.

Perhaps placing memes in the sphere, each with their own "gravity" based on the effectiveness of the meme... and the path then impacted by proximity to memes... it may have to be very close to weak memes (like Fnord), and not as close to strong memes, like *insert local cultures religious standards here*.

Maybe?

That seems to imply a fixed positioning of memes that the User encounters.

Quote from: LMNO on April 07, 2008, 05:06:34 PM
That seems to imply a fixed positioning of memes that the User encounters.

Not necessarily... atoms, particles, molecules move about and affect things without remaining in a fixed position...

Perhaps the memes could appear as 'asteroids' shooting through our own personal GSP, they pass through the outer layer, just as passing through the stratosphere, then depending on the atmosphere inside the GSP (your own personal environment) some memes may find it easy to pass into the sphere, others may find it hard or impossible. Once a meme passes into the sphere, it may pass close enough to the individuals position that it affects their path... Maybe based on the atmosphere, some memes stick around bouncing off the walls, and others pass through the other side... ones that bounce around may affect you multiple times, ones that pass through may affect you if their intersect with the right spot in your path.

maybe...

Well, I already sharted a bunch of ideas about shrapnel in the last post in the open source study thread.

Either it's tl;dr, or just a bunch of shit and everyone is being nice to me so as to not hurt my feelings.

well yeah add to that the memes attracting and repelling eachother as well in a very high dimensional space and you got a pretty good model of some sort of cultural phase space.

as far as i know systems like this don't have an analytical solution for anything above 3 elements, so you'd have to get numerical about it, and i'm willing to bet my pance that the system is chaotic, so it'll do you no good for any sort of long-term prediction.

it's a tangled mess!

Quote from: triple zero on April 07, 2008, 05:34:28 PM
well yeah add to that the memes attracting and repelling eachother as well in a very high dimensional space and you got a pretty good model of some sort of cultural phase space.

as far as i know systems like this don't have an analytical solution for anything above 3 elements, so you'd have to get numerical about it, and i'm willing to bet my pance that the system is chaotic, so it'll do you no good for any sort of long-term prediction.

it's a tangled mess!

Best kind of model for a Discordian, no? ;-)

Quote from: Payne on April 07, 2008, 05:27:35 PM
Well, I already sharted a bunch of ideas about shrapnel in the last post in the open source study thread.

Either it's tl;dr, or just a bunch of shit and everyone is being nice to me so as to not hurt my feelings.

No, it works.  I think I just have an incessant need to visualize and Gliffy this stuff.  I'm a pretty visual person with these heady topics. 

Ok, so you have some sort of gravitational variable for memes.

We must also account for choice, in that just because you encounter a meme doesn't mean it will affect your path.

Quote from: triple zero on April 07, 2008, 05:34:28 PM
well yeah add to that the memes attracting and repelling eachother as well in a very high dimensional space and you got a pretty good model of some sort of cultural phase space.

as far as i know systems like this don't have an analytical solution for anything above 3 elements, so you'd have to get numerical about it, and i'm willing to bet my pance that the system is chaotic, so it'll do you no good for any sort of long-term prediction.

it's a tangled mess!

There's no analytical solution for large numbers, but you can fairly easily program a visual display using a step by step process.  (I've done it in 2D for a class, even in Java computers are powerful enough to do it these days).

Quote from: LMNO on April 07, 2008, 06:25:06 PM
Ok, so you have some sort of gravitational variable for memes.

We must also account for choice, in that just because you encounter a meme doesn't mean it will affect your path.

Indeed... so far:

A GSP Model

1.   Define GSP and XYZ axis
a.   X Axis = Time
b.   Y Axis = Space
c.   Z Axis = Perception
d.   GSP = The sphere defined by the entirety of the Individuals XYZ axis, mayu not be clearly defined until death?
e.   GSP Atmosphere = The factors which affect the capability of a given meme to enter the GSP of an individual. This is  based on the existing "memetic entity" within the GSP.

(So Atheistic memes may bounce off the GSP Atmosphere of someone Dogmatically attached to Christian Memes, but it may ZOOM straight into the GSP of someone not dogmatically attached to an opposed memetic set (agnostic), or someone already heavily invested in a similar memeset (atheist).)

2.   Define Path (Trajectory)
a.   Trajectory begins at Birth, initial vectors set by Parent Trajectory & Culture, as well as DNA.
b.   Trajectory modified by experiences (like Leary's Circuits 1-2)
c.   Trajectory modified by interaction with memes

3.   Define Elements of Memetic Structure
a.   Memetic Gravity - Cultural Density/Popularity/Importance of the Meme
b.   Memetic Attractive Force - Relation of New Meme to Memes already picked up by the Individual
c.   Memetic Repulsive Force - Relation of New Meme to Memes already picked up by the Individual
d.   Memetic Correlation Force – Relation of multiple New Memes to each other.

just for the sake of discussion ;-)

Maybe we shouldn't call it GSP, because GSP is different than this.  I picked a "Sphere" because it is useful to illustrate how around the time of birth and death, the possibilities are contracted, and narrower, than they are in the years where there is more vitality and ability to "move".  So, for further discussions of this particular idea, perhaps a different acronym should be used so as to not confuse the two.  Just a suggestion. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2008, 06:43:53 PM
Maybe we shouldn't call it GSP, because GSP is different than this.  I picked a "Sphere" because it is useful to illustrate how around the time of birth and death, the possibilities are contracted, and narrower, than they are in the years where there is more vitality and ability to "move".  So, for further discussions of this particular idea, perhaps a different acronym should be used so as to not confuse the two.  Just a suggestion. 

The more I think about this... the more I wonde rif the model I described wouldn't work better with the "Memetic Bubble" as the path...

That is, Birth and Death/time as the X axis, Space (your location/how much you travel etc) as Y and perception as Z....

In that scenario, some people may have a weird oblong or disc, depending on their life. Someone who travels a lot and lives a long time... but isn't very perceptive might appear like a wheel, while a person who lives long and is very perceptive but never leaves Arkansas, may look more like a saucer... someone who lives a long time, travels a lot and is very perceptive, may have a huge sphere.

Maybe this is the formula that describes the size of our BiP... or memetic Bubble or whatever?

We could model the bubble in a huge three dimensional field of memes.. the size and shape of the bubble would affect which memes you would be exposed to and your Bubbles atmosphere would define which memes would stick and which would pass through...

what do you think?

"THE AXIS OF EVOL."

Quote from: LMNO on April 07, 2008, 06:56:28 PM
"THE AXIS OF EVOL."

LAWL! :lulz:

Anyway.

Looking along the X/Z grid, it seems likely that most humans would plot out as a diamond:  Very small perception values at birth, expanding to a point diuring maturity, and then decreasing again as one gets older.

I would suggest that some of us here advocate an open ended triangle; that as we age, our Z values continue to increase.

More like a stepped pyramid, as expansion of perception seems to mostly occur in bursts.

Which... I guess could tie to the bubble... the cone/triangle/stepped pyramid, could be the trail left by the bubble/GSP/whatever. the bubble would start with a very short y and z axis, and these would grow (depending on the individual) as the bubble increased along the x axis... I will draw a picture tonight.

This is really cool, I am excited as to the possibilities of this sort of model.... It seems rather agnostic in its symbolism, while other may appear more negative or sappy/optimistic (like some of RAW's stuff).

The Z axis has still not been verified.  Further research needed.

Quote from: LMNO on April 07, 2008, 08:32:42 PM
The Z axis has still not been verified.  Further research needed.

Yes, my current thought would be X as time, Y as Space and Z as Perception... but it depends if we want the bubble to change shape, based on the person inside, or if the size of the bubble may be more static (limitation of perception) traveling through some meme filled medium.

I have some drawings which may clarify my thoughts... then again they may confuse them even more YMMV.

Quote from: Requiem on April 07, 2008, 06:32:30 PM

Quote from: triple zero on April 07, 2008, 05:34:28 PMwell yeah add to that the memes attracting and repelling eachother as well in a very high dimensional space and you got a pretty good model of some sort of cultural phase space.

as far as i know systems like this don't have an analytical solution for anything above 3 elements, so you'd have to get numerical about it, and i'm willing to bet my pance that the system is chaotic, so it'll do you no good for any sort of long-term prediction.

it's a tangled mess!

There's no analytical solution for large numbers, but you can fairly easily program a visual display using a step by step process.  (I've done it in 2D for a class, even in Java computers are powerful enough to do it these days).

step- by-step-process = numerical approximation.

i'd guess you probably used the Euler approximation (just adding the first derivative multiplied by the size of the timestep, iterated), which has a quadratic increase in error even for non-chaotic systems.

there's better algorithms than Euler about, but for a chaotic system you're pretty much screwed, as any deviation in initial conditions and/or floating point round-off errors will accumulate and propagate increasing (often exponentially) in size.

which just means you can't use numerical approach for chaotic systems to predict what is going to happen (or only for a short period of time, like weather forecasts), but what you can do is look at what the general behaviour of the system is. just not predictive.

Ok, exploring the Z-line.

So, if we have space and time, that pretty much is the expanse of the Universe, and the abyss of time.

So, if we are talking about our paths and the turns it makes, we might want to consider the Z line to be one of constraint.

Why constraint?

If it is you who are travelling, then your decisions should be less than the universe, and inside time. 

At the same time, it is fairly easy to see yourself in a situation where you cannot figure out where you are, or how you got there (unknown x/y).  Unfamiliar situations, Unidentified Objects or Situations.  So, the Z line can't be strictly Perception, as we can show the events in our lives exceeding our interpretations.

So, perhaps the Z is experience.  That is, the sensory input that preceeds interpretation. 

But that's not quite right either, as our choices are often based not on what we have been through, but purely on spectulation and imagination.  The Z line should contain not only what we have experienced, but also what we imagine possible (so long as the x or y lines aren't violated).

No, I haven't come to a conclusion yet.  I'm just posting some thoughts.

Let's not get caught up in finding one word to describe Z. I'm now thoroughly confused what Z could possibly be in this context, and it would be more useful to describe Z in many words first, then in one word, than the other way around, or we might end up in silly semantic arguments.

To be honest, when I was making the Gliffy, I wasn't necessarily, literally thinking of defining Y and Z.  I think I was mostly trying to illustrate how we exist, during our lifetime, within a huge universe that we can never fully and adequately define.  In fact the edges of the Sphere really should be dashed, not a solid line.  (but Gliffy doesn't have such options)

But certainly the question is there, what causes some, while hurtling down the x-axis towards death, to try to explore the universe or "sphere" that they are existing within.  So, in that respect, I think St. Verbatim is right.  Z, and Y for that matter, are likely a set of things that cause the outward migration from the straight-line approach to the inevitable.  I think the BIP is certainly a part of that and all that which informs and builds the bars in the BIP. 

Actually, this isn't semantics, in the sense that we're splitting the meaning of a word.

This is about what the hell that Z line could represent.


[edit] I'm starting to see where you're coming from, RWHN.  I'm getting a tingle in the back of my head that I'm trying to overly what's essentially a topographical map on top of a linear XYZ graph.  Which probably won't work.[/edit]

Exactly, LMNO, that's why we shouldn't try to capture it in one word just yet, but rather think of more elaborate definitions for Z and see what comes out. But that's easier said than done, and I have no idea anymore how I would try to define Z. Perception came close to something I thought I could agree with but your previous post left me confused.

Well, it seems that we may be better off discussing what we think happens... then trying to model it.

So, we're born... the physical location and time of our birth affects what information/memes/ideas we will initially be exposed to, the initial tribal imprint maybe. I think we could say that these initial memes will have a strong effect on how we perceive reality and how we will tend to react to other different memes. So how do we go from the initial Tribal memes to others?

It seems we can generalize new memes in three areas; new memes over time (The Digital Revolution for example), new memes based on information gathering(Reading a book, taking a class, going to school), new memes based on meeting new groups of people (culture, subculture, counterculture).

Where else do memes come from?

Can we not use the word "meme"?

At least not all the time.

I mean, I suppose you can look at a bully beating you up in middle school as a "meme", but that's kind of a stretch; and something like that will affect your path in life.

Well we can call events like that "shrapnel". So it's both memes and shrapnel we're talking about.

Quote from: LMNO on April 08, 2008, 04:49:12 PM
Can we not use the word "meme"?

At least not all the time.

I mean, I suppose you can look at a bully beating you up in middle school as a "meme", but that's kind of a stretch; and something like that will affect your path in life.

Good point... but in thinking about this:

Tthe way you react to the Bully might be dependent on the beliefs/programming in your head. I got beat up as a kid a few times, I had been raised as a JW/pacifist though and the beating appeared to me as their hated of my religion... I was persecuted, just like Jesus.

If I'd been raised by my Uncle, I would probably have kicked the shit out of the bully. If I had been raised by my friend Carl's parents I might have done what he did and go cry to Mommy and get the bully expelled.

So there seems a relationship, perhaps between the path, events/shrapnel and the beliefs (memes?) that you've already absorbed. While the shrapnel or event might force our path to react, memes (maybe) define the direction of the reaction.

I'm sure there's a better term than meme though.

The memes and shrapnel seem to be the external side of things. The internal, personal result of both can probably be captured in one word, as their results are not all that different. I'm tempted to use "imprint" or "scar" but neither seem right (and both have too many connotations).

Quote from: st.verbatim on April 08, 2008, 05:06:23 PM
The memes and shrapnel seem to be the external side of things. The internal, personal result of both can probably be captured in one word, as their results are not all that different. I'm tempted to use "imprint" or "scar" but neither seem right (and both have too many connotations).

Yeah... this is a rather complex concept we're trying to model... maybe we would be better off making multiple models to explain each concept, then look for a Grand Unified Model once we have the basics fleshed out?

In talking about this it reminds me of what RAW said about reality being "Interactive processes non-simultaneously apprehended"

What's enticing is that, when using RWHN's gliffy as a launching point, we can kind of see what we're aiming at.  There's Space-Time, running into near-infinity, and inside that is the path our life is taking, banged about by shrapnel and sucked in by memes, and all of that is encapsulated by an amoeba-like amorphous shell of the experiences we have and the things we imagine.

Quote from: LMNO on April 08, 2008, 06:42:01 PM
What's enticing is that, when using RWHN's gliffy as a launching point, we can kind of see what we're aiming at.  There's Space-Time, running into near-infinity, and inside that is the path our life is taking, banged about by shrapnel and sucked in by memes, and all of that is encapsulated by an amoeba-like amorphous shell of the experiences we have and the things we imagine.

Yeah, its the 'banging about' bit which we seem to have difficulty modeling ;-)

Do you see the X/Y axis as being the length and height of the amorphous shell, or is the shell traveling along those axises? Does the bubble travel along from birth to death, or is the length of the bubble the length between your birth and death?

For me, bubble is modified by the Z line.  The path is contained within it.  The bubble is smaller than the upper limits of XY.

The bubble starts at birth (coordinate X'Y'), and stretches positive Y (at first.  when you learn about the past, the bubble can stretch before X'Y').  The bubble grows also along X, as you move about in space.  So, your life span increases Y, and increased travel/movement increase X.

Learning increases Z, and it's vector can increase the area of X and of Y.

The memes and shrapnel increase Z, as well as thought and imagination.

Quote from: LMNO on April 08, 2008, 07:00:50 PM
For me, bubble is modified by the Z line.  The path is contained within it.  The bubble is smaller than the upper limits of XY.

The bubble starts at birth (coordinate X'Y'), and stretches positive Y (at first.  when you learn about the past, the bubble can stretch before X'Y').  The bubble grows also along X, as you move about in space.  So, your life span increases Y, and increased travel/movement increase X.

Learning increases Z, and it's vector can increase the area of X and of Y.

The memes and shrapnel increase Z, as well as thought and imagination.

So more of a disc sort of shape in the end?

I think Payne in an older thread posits some ideas that speak to deviations and how "Shrapnel" plays a part.  It's long but I think it's quite pertinent to the discussion.  

Quote from: Payne on March 08, 2008, 01:24:53 AM

The BIP is not a static concept, and this is covered in all the literature and discussions that have been held about it. We carry our BIP with us from birth to death. While the BIP may evolve over time, it is never escaped, as such, so any visualisation of our lives as being journeys down "paths" should include the BIP metaphor (tried and tested as it is, it will make further investigation easier to breakdown and comprehend)

Paths are a broad, fairly general, description of the journey, and in a previous post, i postulated that a certain degree of detail Vs. "The Big Picture" would anyway be inherent in any further investigation. For the purposes of trying to actually find something usable, i've gone or a balance of detail with big picture.

Paths are fairly easy to understand, I think, and should simplify the process.

"Shrapnel" however, is a trcky concept, and hard to pin down. Is it communication? is it good or bad, or both?

The best I can really say, with the amount I've been thinking about it is that it, along with good old random chance, is what governs "Paths", specifically deviations from a straightforward, constant path.

What it is is really dependant on which way you are looking at path, from which perspective. As I said earlier, I'm going to try and approach this as a balance betwen detail and an over view, so it is probably best to examine the "shrapnel" idea from a basis of any intra/extra-BIP interaction, so therefore communication and relationships with anything from outside your own BIP. That would be any interaction originating from outside to inside or vice-versa. These interactions will influence choices and "directions" on the path.

A quick note about random chance, which Could influence you in the same way, this is often really dependant on your reaction to it as much as it is by the event itself, so is really covered in the BIP stuff already.

External stimuli can light the path before us, blind us to it, or cast a new light on the bars of our prison, causing us to re-evaluate them. They provide the framewok you can visualise the path in.

The whole "shrapnel" idea seems to have boiled down to the art of comunication and interpretation through the bars in our prisons, learning how to do both as effectively as possible, and learning the limitations of what we can do with both.  It's perhaps the ultimate expression of the idea "think for yourself", it lessens the need to communicate through multiple sets of bars and filters and/or makes the task of having to do so more defined.

Observable, concrete Reality, concepts are easier to communicate through bars and filters, as it's individually testable, and we know that certain things will always hold true for all of us. We are not going to suddenly over come gravity, or learn telepathy, and we can be relatively certain that with these solid concepts, very little loss of information will occur through interpretation.

Emotive and perceptual concepts are much harder to communicate effectively, as they will be affected much more by an individuals bars, i think because most bars are emotive and perceptual by nature. Interpretation of any given interaction based on these concepts will be skewed by multiple sets of bars.

With that, we can surmise we have REALITY, and juxtaposed over that, a more more personal emotive and perceptual reality. Some of the problems we have with this, and some other ideas, is that building more realities (metaphors, concepts, interpretation) over the second type of reality get you more and more removed from REALITY, making these metaphors/concepts/interpretations less testable, less communicatable and, ultimately, far less useful.

With this view of the "shrapnel" concept, we can see it is ultimately down to interpretation whether it is good or bad. Some people like to build bars to deflect some of the interactions, or to encouage others - due to interpretation. Some people will expend a lot of energy trying to tailor their communication AROUND other peoples bars, or go for an all out assault on them- due to interpreation.

Ultimately I guess all I could really say about this all is thatt hat great constant, time, will force you down your path, whether you deide to take a hand in where it leads you or not. So you can sit in your cell, isolated and enjoying the ride, or you can constantly consider your interactions, and ignore the scenery, or, finally, ind a balance betwen the two and try to make the best of both worlds.

Where has this led us ultimately? I think nowhere, But maybe someone out there will interpret something from this interaction and find something useful. I hope so.

This seems to model the interaction with 'shrapnel' as a point-in-time event which may change your path. Yet, it seems to me that many experiences/memes/events/shrapnel may not affect you when you first encounter them, but only later, perhaps in connection with other experiences/memes/events/shrapnel...

Ah, but that's why it is "Shrapnel"  Embedded "Shrapnel" may take time before it interacts and exerts its influence.  Much like actual shrapnel may become embedded and not have any health-implications right away. 

And why parts of the above text refer to the Shrapnel affecting BIP bars as opposed to affecting you directly.

Yep.  So it's like Shrapnel could be a course changer or probably more often a bar builder/changer/modifier, which can become a course changer. 

A personal example is the death of my Grandmother was when I was 13.  There was an obvious immediate change that occurred when she died as I was very close to her.  But there was a lingering aspect of that incident that I think has had other impacts throughout my life and how I've chosen to live it.  So that bit of Shrapnel changed course immediately, but it also built this bar (or bars) in my cell that have gone on to have further impact on my path. 

The following image comes to mind:
Our Amorphous Field of Coordinates is our experience of life (as expressed in terms of space-time and another dimension we are now trying to define). It is located within our personal BIP which is the outer limit of our perception - part mutable, part set in stone, the Amorphous Field cannot exceed it. Within the Field, the Coordinate that is I floats around. To actively change the BIP, I will have to reach the extremities of the Field and get to the walls and bars of my Prison. I can do this by traveling extremely far and seeing new things - reaching the extremities of the Space of my Field. I can do this by reaching my Field's extremities in Time - at birth and at death (this is untestable but seems to make sense in a way, or at least to be esthetically pleasing). Finally, I can do this by reaching extremities of the intellect, the ends of that elusive Z axis.
And as all shrapnel comes from without the BIP, it must either embed in the BIP (thus changing it) or enter into my Field and quite possibly change it, or the path I make through it.

How does all that sound?

Confusing.

Yeah.

Confusing.

I tried to simplify it at least :x

Yeah, I think if there is any intention to bring this subject matter outside of the group, being able to describe it to someone outside of the group is going to be key. 

The main problem is that "space" is usally a 3-vector system all by itself, and now we're collapsing it to 1.

And within that, we're plotting a course.  Which sort of implies space.

So, we need someone with knowledge of how to manipulate n-dimensional space.

Or maybe I need to sketch some more.

k how about this.

imagine a wide open cone, point facing down

it's a bumpy wrinkly cone, these are the factors that influence you in life. or shrapnel, or whatever.

now there's a marble, it starts at the edge of the cone (birth), and starts twirling down the cone, being affected in its trajectory by all the bumps and wrinkles, but inavoidably will end up in the bottom point, where there's a hole (death).

lovely metaphor, innit?

except that's not how it goes.

your life as a human can be modelled as a wriggly line (path) from birth to death through an extremely high dimensional space.
think of particles floating in a fluid being pushed around by a multitude of different currents and forces, each one representing a human life, each one affecting the fluid, the currents and the forces that act upon all the other particles. now imagine this particle being like a glowing spark coming from a campfire, it glows, follows a wriggly path and dies out after a while. take a picture with long shutter time. there's your line!

now imagine, with all particles together, affecting one another, wriggling through eachother's lives, long shutter time.

there's my tangled mess.

I decided to break it down (with illustrations!)

Lets' start with just 2 axis: Space and time.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/axisofEvol0.jpg)

Ok, on the the timeline, we have birth and death.

So, just for example's sake, lets' say a person is born in a small room, and never leaves it.  It would look like this:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/AxisofEvol1.jpg)

Ok, now let's say that (somehow), he learns that there was a person in this room before he was born.  That knowledge allows him to consider an area before he existed:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/AxisofEvol2.jpg)

Now, let's have him leave the room.  He now enters space:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/AxisofEvol3.jpg)

Now he encounters the shrapnel and meme fields, and his knowledge extends beyond his lifespan and space experience.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/AxisofEvol4.jpg)


Somewhere in that yellow field is the Z axis, I would think.

So, then is the Yellow that which he thinks exists but cannot perceive or experience?  Imagination?

In part, yeah.

But it's also like my idea of Ankor Watt.  I know it exists, but I have not experienced it, so the potential for my path to go there is much more possible.

Quote from: triple zero on April 09, 2008, 02:19:39 PM
k how about this.

imagine a wide open cone, point facing down

it's a bumpy wrinkly cone, these are the factors that influence you in life. or shrapnel, or whatever.

now there's a marble, it starts at the edge of the cone (birth), and starts twirling down the cone, being affected in its trajectory by all the bumps and wrinkles, but inavoidably will end up in the bottom point, where there's a hole (death).

lovely metaphor, innit?

except that's not how it goes.

your life as a human can be modelled as a wriggly line (path) from birth to death through an extremely high dimensional space.
think of particles floating in a fluid being pushed around by a multitude of different currents and forces, each one representing a human life, each one affecting the fluid, the currents and the forces that act upon all the other particles. now imagine this particle being like a glowing spark coming from a campfire, it glows, follows a wriggly path and dies out after a while. take a picture with long shutter time. there's your line!

now imagine, with all particles together, affecting one another, wriggling through eachother's lives, long shutter time.

there's my tangled mess.

A cone!

This thread made my head hurt trying to understand it. I think I like 000's example of a cone best, just because I could actually visualize it. Good luck to you guys trying to figure out what Z is.

I just had another visualization:

Take a pool table.  Lucky for you, it's infinately large.

At one end is a cue ball.  That's you.

With a uterine push, you begin to roll down the table.

If nothing else ever happened to you, you'd go straight, and eventually stop.

However, from either side there are other balls running perpendicular to your path.  Sometimes, they miss; sometimes, they collide.  When they collide, your path changes (depending on the angle of the collision, you can go in many different possible ways).  These balls are can be considered our term of 'shrapnel'.

What's more, the table isn't smooth: There are elevations and depressions pockmarking the table.  Some are large, some are small, and all are at irregular intervals.  When you roll over them, they also change your path, but again it depends at what angle you run into them.  These bumps and dips can be considered memes.

So, shrapnel can knock you into memes, and memes can point you at shrapnel, and sometimes you miss the memes, and sometimes, the shrapnel misses you.  Note that your initial encounter with memes are dependent on where you start on the table: This accounts for cultural/geographical memes.  Note also that someone affected by a Xtianity bump can be knocked into an Islamic bump by means of shrapnel.

Finally, you have a very weak effect on the ball's direction itself.  That is, most people can't radically change the direction of their ball, but they can sometimes affect at which angle they hit a meme or some shrapnel; maybe they have influence over the spin.  So you're not completely helpless in your travels on the pool table, but at the same time, you don't have complete mastery of your journey.

Perhaps we can call the ability to affect the ball's spin "education" or "learning" or "wisdom".





Actually, I'm not sure this has anything to do with the OP other than re-reading this thread gave me these thoughts.

That's a very interesting thought and possibly a very useful metaphor.
:mittens:

Makes sense to me.  

And I think looking back on my life it certainly makes sense.  I know I'd most likely be in a completely different place in my life now, as a 32 year old, if I had stuck with the Baptist thing, which I probably would have stuck with if a certain person in my life hadn't died, which probably wouldn't have happened if she'd hadn't had an asshat performing her heart surgery, etc., etc., etc.,

Geez, maybe I'd be a successful Christian Rock n Roll Artist by now.  Fuck.  Maybe I should go find my religion again.  

Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2008, 05:55:02 PM
I just had another visualization:

Take a pool table.  Lucky for you, it's infinately large.

At one end is a cue ball.  That's you.

With a uterine push, you begin to roll down the table.

If nothing else ever happened to you, you'd go straight, and eventually stop.

However, from either side there are other balls running perpendicular to your path.  Sometimes, they miss; sometimes, they collide.  When they collide, your path changes (depending on the angle of the collision, you can go in many different possible ways).  These balls are can be considered our term of 'shrapnel'.

What's more, the table isn't smooth: There are elevations and depressions pockmarking the table.  Some are large, some are small, and all are at irregular intervals.  When you roll over them, they also change your path, but again it depends at what angle you run into them.  These bumps and dips can be considered memes.

So, shrapnel can knock you into memes, and memes can point you at shrapnel, and sometimes you miss the memes, and sometimes, the shrapnel misses you.  Note that your initial encounter with memes are dependent on where you start on the table: This accounts for cultural/geographical memes.  Note also that someone affected by a Xtianity bump can be knocked into an Islamic bump by means of shrapnel.

Finally, you have a very weak effect on the ball's direction itself.  That is, most people can't radically change the direction of their ball, but they can sometimes affect at which angle they hit a meme or some shrapnel; maybe they have influence over the spin.  So you're not completely helpless in your travels on the pool table, but at the same time, you don't have complete mastery of your journey.

Perhaps we can call the ability to affect the ball's spin "education" or "learning" or "wisdom".





Actually, I'm not sure this has anything to do with the OP other than re-reading this thread gave me these thoughts.

Call the ability to effect the ball's spin free will.  I like your metaphor/model a lot; the only thing I would change would be to put more emphasis on the potential power of free will.  Not complete - even the most self-actualized people have trouble doing 180s by themselves, and and very rarely used to its potential.  For me, the BIP is being wholly subject to the evironment and shrapnel, which makes freeing yourself a matter of taking control of your own path.

Make them heavy hamster balls. Steerable, but hard.

Quote from: PeregrineBF on July 11, 2008, 10:59:44 AM
Make them heavy hamster balls. Steerable, but hard.

We have a winnar!

Especially when you consider that the plexiglass is going to distort what you see outside :wink:

also, the balls are in fact points and the pool table with bumps is in fact a high dimensional scalar field, through which the points follow a gradient descent route.
following this path, the points change the value of the scalar field in their surroundings by using a convolution matrix (which can be said to be the structure of your mind).

:p

not as visually provoking, but more accurate. which is the thing that always strikes me first with this shrapnel model, it's too simple. it doesn't allow for creating a huge tangled mess.

back to the pool table model, the balls are able to mold the bumps and dips on the table, right?

Quote from: triple zero on July 11, 2008, 09:21:48 PM

back to the pool table model, the balls are able to mold the bumps and dips on the table, right?

I've played on a few really fucked out old tables in my time. The balls are how the bumps and dips get there in the first place.

Well, a mixture of that and high speed human faces :evil:

Your math is going to fail. Two critical things are not accounted for.

1) You are trying to delineate the size and shape.

2) You did not account for the fact that many times steps will be retraced and then followed again.

None of this can really be a defined size or shape. IMO whatever it is will always be in flux as we grow and then revert back. The XYZ thinking will only work if you are prepared to see something like a ball of string that a cat has been playing with. Anything else will be like trying to order chaos. In the BIP metaphore it has already been acknowledged the size and shape will always change. I have noticed that sometimes when I finally grasp a large concept that my BIP instantly SHRINKS instead of grows as I realize how little I actually know.

Don't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:11:55 PM
Don't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

Agreed, and the more maps, the better... since each map might tell us something different about the territory ;-)

Maybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down  :eek:

Nah, the territory is there.  It's just that we're never able to really survey all of it.  It's another example of human-kind's incessant need to categorize and catalog everything it experiences. 

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:19:24 PM
Maybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down  :eek:

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PM
Nah, the territory is there.  It's just that we're never able to really survey all of it. 

Which can be another way of saying there is no escape from the BIP.

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:29:47 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PM
Nah, the territory is there.  It's just that we're never able to really survey all of it. 

Which can be another way of saying there is no escape from the BIP.

If I may ask. Why would we want to escape? Are we looking for the perfect place? How incredibly boring that would be. Infinite perfection is the worst kind of death. Boredom.

I was referencing the Rat/LMNO divide about how each of us see the BIP.


We've pretty reached a standoff, but if you want to jump in, feel free.

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:29:47 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PM
Nah, the territory is there.  It's just that we're never able to really survey all of it. 

Which can be another way of saying there is no escape from the BIP.

Yeah, but I've always been with you on that one. 

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:38:56 PM
I was referencing the Rat/LMNO divide about how each of us see the BIP.


We've pretty reached a standoff, but if you want to jump in, feel free.

Well I'm on the side of no escape. Getting out of a cell still leaves you within the walls. A prison the size of the universe is still a prison.


edited for sp

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 16, 2008, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:19:24 PM
Maybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down  :eek:

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

I'd say more 'liberating'

And it's only a prison in that it is inescapable.  But there is so much territory within the prison, that it is an incarceration that offers up a fuck-ton of freedom of movement.  

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:38:56 PM
I was referencing the Rat/LMNO divide about how each of us see the BIP.


We've pretty reached a standoff, but if you want to jump in, feel free.

Wait, we have to pick a side?

YES.

Kimchee on one side, sauerkraut on the other.

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:46:22 PM
And it's only a prison in that it is inescapable.  But there is so much territory within the prison, that it is an incarceration that offers up a fuck-ton of freedom of movement.  

Prisons aren't the only things that you can't (or shouldn't) escape from , though.

If I want to experience the awesome ride of a rollercoaster, I will be in an inescapable car, with a heavy bar pressing down on me, locking me in place. Is that a prison, or simply the necessary interface required to experience the ride?

If I want to experiencing flying, I could go up in an airplane, no escape, no control... but a safe ride over a long distance, is it a prison, or a tool? If that's too constraining, perhaps I'll go hang gliding, still a constraint, still inescapable (if you want to survive), but with more control and more freedom, but less capabilities (like flying cross country). Or, if I really want to fly, maybe I'll get into one of those cool new gliding suits with the wings under the armpits. I'm still trapped in the suit, if you want to think of it as a trap. I'm still not able to escape the confines of everything and truly be free to fly...

but, I, personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

We have only our neurological system with which to experience Reality. Its a shoddy patchwork of neurons and nerves, with an often confused computer trying to justify beliefs and rationalize what it sees with what it thinks it should see. That might be a prison, it certianly can become a prison for many people, and perhaps everyone has that prison, for at least part of their life. However, the alternative to this experience of Reality through a imperfect and limiting interface is, as far as I know, no experiencing at all.

In contrast, I personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 16, 2008, 05:02:59 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:46:22 PM
And it's only a prison in that it is inescapable.  But there is so much territory within the prison, that it is an incarceration that offers up a fuck-ton of freedom of movement. 

Prisons aren't the only things that you can't (or shouldn't) escape from , though.

If I want to experience the awesome ride of a rollercoaster, I will be in an inescapable car, with a heavy bar pressing down on me, locking me in place. Is that a prison, or simply the necessary interface required to experience the ride?

If I want to experiencing flying, I could go up in an airplane, no escape, no control... but a safe ride over a long distance, is it a prison, or a tool? If that's too constraining, perhaps I'll go hang gliding, still a constraint, still inescapable (if you want to survive), but with more control and more freedom, but less capabilities (like flying cross country). Or, if I really want to fly, maybe I'll get into one of those cool new gliding suits with the wings under the armpits. I'm still trapped in the suit, if you want to think of it as a trap. I'm still not able to escape the confines of everything and truly be free to fly...

but, I, personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

We have only our neurological system with which to experience Reality. Its a shoddy patchwork of neurons and nerves, with an often confused computer trying to justify beliefs and rationalize what it sees with what it thinks it should see. That might be a prison, it certianly can become a prison for many people, and perhaps everyone has that prison, for at least part of their life. However, the alternative to this experience of Reality through a imperfect and limiting interface is, as far as I know, no experiencing at all.

In contrast, I personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

Agree! The metaphor works up to a point - the average joe is trapped by it and thus will experience a prison. However, once you realise what's going on you are still bound by the constraints but it's somehow not a prison anymore.

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:11:55 PMDon't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

well either the shrapnel model is so obvious to me it doesn't strike me as anything special, but honestly, i really miss the bit where this model becomes an Impossible Tangled Mess, like Rev Asshat said, where the math is going to fail.

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×10⁶⁴, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PMNah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:45:11 PM

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 16, 2008, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:19:24 PMMaybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down  :eek:

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

I'd say more 'liberating'

ZOMG eXistenZ WALLHAX!

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

Quote

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PMNah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.   

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though :)

Quote

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PMNah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.[/quote]

basically, it's the question of whether there is any One Objective Reality. if not, it must be maps all the way down. i have no knowledge to say either one of the options is true or false.

see, our brains are evolved for Fitness, not for Truth. this means it's not even certain the maps we base our existence on are slightly in the right direction of what's really going on.

on the other hand, i like your idea of the shifting territory as well. the "territory of human existence", kind of sounds to me like the Consensus Reality, not necessarily the One Objective one, but it's pretty good as it gets, and because it's based on consensus, it's also highly useful. just one problem: this territory, solid as it may be, is entirely built .. out of maps.

Quote from: tripzipthe point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

Or something.  Or maybe I just like the image.

Incidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:11:55 PMDon't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

well either the shrapnel model is so obvious to me it doesn't strike me as anything special, but honestly, i really miss the bit where this model becomes an Impossible Tangled Mess, like Rev Asshat said, where the math is going to fail.

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×10⁶⁴, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PMNah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:45:11 PM

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 16, 2008, 04:26:30 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:19:24 PMMaybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down  :eek:

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

I'd say more 'liberating'

ZOMG eXistenZ WALLHAX!

Can you generate the computer program without a baseline of reference? The Impossible Tangled Mess works for me because it completely reflects the randomness of human nature. I like it.

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 04:05:03 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though :)

I suppose I should amend that.  That's how I would interpret it.  He'll have to clarify what he actually meant.  ;)

Quote

Quote

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 04:26:07 PMNah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.

basically, it's the question of whether there is any One Objective Reality. if not, it must be maps all the way down. i have no knowledge to say either one of the options is true or false.

see, our brains are evolved for Fitness, not for Truth. this means it's not even certain the maps we base our existence on are slightly in the right direction of what's really going on.

on the other hand, i like your idea of the shifting territory as well. the "territory of human existence", kind of sounds to me like the Consensus Reality, not necessarily the One Objective one, but it's pretty good as it gets, and because it's based on consensus, it's also highly useful. just one problem: this territory, solid as it may be, is entirely built .. out of maps.
[/quote][/quote]

I guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

Quote from: LMNO on July 17, 2008, 04:05:47 PM

Quote from: tripzipthe point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

well, yeah, but isn't that obvious to everybody? is it new? or does it just sound like old hat because i've been actively observing my own thoughts for so long now?

QuoteIncidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

complex, yeah kinda, but not enough :)

what it lacks is a self-feedback effect.

basically, you can make the table arbitrarily bumpy or add an arbitrary amount of pool balls going off everywhere, and the cue ball's trajectory will become more and more complex, but it will not even begin to approach the chaotic complexity of feedback systems. and that just irks me.

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on July 17, 2008, 04:12:41 PMCan you generate the computer program without a baseline of reference?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean?

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 04:13:20 PMI guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

my point was, we might as well all be completely entirely wrong about the bit where our Grids overlap, or what i call theConsensus Reality, only one thing we can be certain about, is that this Consensus Reality is something that, for a long time, has worked Really Well.

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 04:13:20 PMI guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

my point was, we might as well all be completely entirely wrong about the bit where our Grids overlap, or what i call theConsensus Reality, only one thing we can be certain about, is that this Consensus Reality is something that, for a long time, has worked Really Well.

Warning: Approaching Barstool Danger Zone

:barstool:

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×1064, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

Without a reference baseline this seems like it would just be a computer run amuck. What would the data reflect? How would it be translated into something usable? How would one generate the model given the random behavior of the human beast?

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: LMNO on July 17, 2008, 04:05:47 PM

Quote from: tripzipthe point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

well, yeah, but isn't that obvious to everybody? is it new? or does it just sound like old hat because i've been actively observing my own thoughts for so long now?

But wasn't the BIP obvious, too?

Quote

QuoteIncidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

complex, yeah kinda, but not enough :)

what it lacks is a self-feedback effect.

basically, you can make the table arbitrarily bumpy or add an arbitrary amount of pool balls going off everywhere, and the cue ball's trajectory will become more and more complex, but it will not even begin to approach the chaotic complexity of feedback systems. and that just irks me.

But if we tie this into the "why are humans are predicatble?" thread, we can maybe see that a lot of the chaotic complexity you miss actually gets stripped out of the process.

I mean, if all that chaos was there, there would be a tendency towards more differences, not more conformity, right?

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 04:05:03 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though :)

Ha! You know me too well TZ!

Indeed, I think all maps are useful in some sense. Not always the same sense though. For example, a map of the Columbus Sewage system wouldn't be useful in the same way Google Maps would be. A map of The World circa 1150 AD, wouldn't be nearly as useful as a map of the world as mapped out by satellite... but it might be invaluable, in gaining a greater understanding of the people living in 1150 AD.

Maps tell us about the territory... but, perhaps just as importantly (IMO) they also tell us about how someone else perceives the territory. When I speak to a Fundamentalist Christian, I try to use their maps, so I understand better how they see the territory. I could stick with the map that I personally think best... but if their map and my map differ greatly, then we won't be able to usefully communicate. If I can grok their map, then I can communicate with them more easily.

Now, I wouldn't consider their map a good map to live by and I am sad that so many people use incomplete, incompatible, incongruous, incorrect maps from incompetent map makers. However, if people use a map, looking at that map occasionally, might help figuring out what those people think they're doing ;-)

So for example:

Reality Tunnels, Black Iron Prisons, Reality Grids, Shrapnel, Cue Balls on infinitely bumpy tables.... all Model a territory. They all model it differently, showing different aspects of how the territory is perceived by the map maker. Therefore, I think they all have value (and the more the better) because they show us MORE perspectives on the territory.

We can argue the details of each map, we might have "Here theyre Be Iron Bars" scrawled along one side, or we might use "circuit programming" to discuss the same concept as "Shrapnel". Both have value, and neither model is useless... but all models are limited.

For me I have a sliding scale for models:

Very Useful..........................................................Not Very Useful

But, nowehere on that scale is Useless... because even the worst map there, then one that is at (Not Very Useful - 1) still probably tells us something interesting about some humans.

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2008, 05:12:43 PM

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 04:05:03 PM

Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 17, 2008, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 03:32:54 PM

Quote from: RatatoskAgreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though :)

Ha! You know me too well TZ!

Indeed, I think all maps are useful in some sense. Not always the same sense though. For example, a map of the Columbus Sewage system wouldn't be useful in the same way Google Maps would be. A map of The World circa 1150 AD, wouldn't be nearly as useful as a map of the world as mapped out by satellite... but it might be invaluable, in gaining a greater understanding of the people living in 1150 AD.

I just thought I'd point out that this is the same as saying any map is useful if you're using the right map for it to appear so. Metacartography ITT.

Carry on.

 :mrgreen:

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2008, 05:12:43 PM
Ha! You know me too well TZ!

let me remind you of 000's impression of you during the WOMP project A Fapcab Named Desire (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=15864.0)

Quote(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/fapcab/suck_lebowski.jpg)

Ratatosk's casting as LHX's comic relief sidekick in the Predicate ##### Gang, a renegade group of rebelling semantic subjectivists, was not only unfortunate as well as highly aggravating, spouting inane oneliners like a twelve year-old that just discovered the sentence-fragment "... that's what she said!":

LHX: "E-Prime, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!"
Ratatosk: ".. IN SOME SENSE!"
Cainad: "Dude .. I .. have a heart condition .."
Ratatosk: ".. MAYBE!"

Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 17, 2008, 06:35:36 PM
:mrgreen:

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2008, 05:12:43 PM
Ha! You know me too well TZ!

let me remind you of 000's impression of you during the WOMP project A Fapcab Named Desire (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=15864.0)

Quote(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/fapcab/suck_lebowski.jpg)

Ratatosk's casting as LHX's comic relief sidekick in the Predicate ##### Gang, a renegade group of rebelling semantic subjectivists, was not only unfortunate as well as highly aggravating, spouting inane oneliners like a twelve year-old that just discovered the sentence-fragment "... that's what she said!":

LHX: "E-Prime, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!"
Ratatosk: ".. IN SOME SENSE!"
Cainad: "Dude .. I .. have a heart condition .."
Ratatosk: ".. MAYBE!"

OSHI, how did I ever miss that?!

IMO, if you grok a fundie christian map in order to communicate better with them, you're not actually navigating with their map, but you are using your own map which you have constructed in such a way that it is able to reflect the way these christian fundies think.
yes, you are "using" their map, in the sense that ou have been studying it, and "using" it again when you speak to them in coordinates relative to their maps, but by no means are you actually being a christian fundie, navigating with the christian fundie map, because if you truly were, you wouldnt automatically return to the regular map you use for every day life.

so you got yourself some kind of chameleon multi-map. and in a sense, everybody does, but some are more flexible than others.

yet this means that not all maps are created equal. some are good enough to actually use for navigating and getting somewhere, and others are useful for molding your personal map to in order to communicate better with certain people, and yet others are useful for even vaguer stuff, some are simply weird and funny, and then, i'm pretty sure, i can come up with some map that is just plain useless.

i was going somewhere, but either i forgot or i already went there.

few more things:

1) what cainad said, i agree with.

2) yeah i kinda figured you missed it cause i never got any comment from you about it ;-) [i wonder if i sent it to LHX as well].

3) the "Predicate ##### Gang", i was going to fill in another word there, but apparently i completely forgot about it, heh.

Quote from: triple zero on July 17, 2008, 07:24:50 PM
IMO, if you grok a fundie christian map in order to communicate better with them, you're not actually navigating with their map, but you are using your own map which you have constructed in such a way that it is able to reflect the way these christian fundies think.
yes, you are "using" their map, in the sense that ou have been studying it, and "using" it again when you speak to them in coordinates relative to their maps, but by no means are you actually being a christian fundie, navigating with the christian fundie map, because if you truly were, you wouldnt automatically return to the regular map you use for every day life.

Well, maybe. For me personally, I have spent periods of time trying to navigate with different maps. I'm serious when I've said that I spent time basing my beliefs on the roll of a die. In some cases, I have found it possible to get trapped there. It was only through a routine which I forced myself to follow that I escaped the most recent adventure I had with the "Conservative Politics" map. Fortunately for me, I force myself through a couple rituals at the end of each month to purge the old... I found myself reluctant to purge though, because the map seemed really useful after a month of being completely embedded with people that used it. About half the country seems to find it useful, and I can see why. In the end, thanks to the safeguards I put in place (or maybe I only think it was those...) I am happily not a Conservative now. Did I really change my map, or did I just pretend? I don't know, I'm not sure how we could use such a broad metaphor to cover things like temporary belief systems.

Quote
so you got yourself some kind of chameleon multi-map. and in a sense, everybody does, but some are more flexible than others.

Maybe. a metamap perhaps. Indeed, some would argue that Crowley considered the Tree of Life a metamap of all religious systems. You can certainly transpose many of the religions in the world to that basic set of metaphors. Maybe I just have a chameleon map, or maybe I make use of other maps, either way... the map (weather I follow it wholesale, or just metafollow it) is useful in understanding the people that follow it.

Quote
yet this means that not all maps are created equal.

I agree entirely.

Quote
some are good enough to actually use for navigating and getting somewhere, and others are useful for molding your personal map to in order to communicate better with certain people, and yet others are useful for even vaguer stuff, some are simply weird and funny, and then, i'm pretty sure, i can come up with some map that is just plain useless.

I agree with everything except the very last statement. any map you make, is based on an interpretation of what you experience, or believe or think is true. As such, it seems useful in understanding you. If the map is not  based on some perceived territory, then its not really a map, is it? It may just be a drawing.

;-)

But I think we're arguing semantics here. I think that there are lots of maps with Minimal Value... that is they might be useful to us in some manner(anthropology maybe ;-) ), but probably not in a manner that would fall under "normal usage" for a map (telling you enough about the territory that you don't go fall in a hole and die).

How's that?