I currently disagree with a large part of the visual model we currently have. There seems to be a big emphasis on equating the brain with a computer, and thereby limiting our models to the constraints against computers.
I believe (unfounded as of yet) that the feature detectors do not just measure 2d simple geometric shapes. I think this happens when we keep thinking of light as a particle. Nature wouldn't limit itself to one modality of light.
I believe that a lot of feature detectors take movement(spirals) and geometry(lots of pentagons) and translate it into simple static symbols visualized as a 2d surface. The brain then makes a new 3d static representation from two of these condensed static views.
Reality might be running at 5Ghz, most of us only refresh ~60/sec:) Part of meditation is learning how to slow down one's consumption of the outside world, slowing helps to show the movement in everything. Most people just pop acid though.
It's a weird phenomenon, but as you run your brain faster, 3d object recognition goes downhill. Object recognition is temporally computationally complex. Before i learned how to see, i often wondered if i could even think while 'seeing'. Now, i'm still pretty dumb while i'm seeing, it's like i'm average:). I was staring at a receipt trying to figure out a tip, and all i could see was a crumpled piece of paper in my hand, so i gave up. So i seriously can't do math when seeing, but if i shut off object processing, i can go back to doing math in my head, and using the viewscreen for visualization and graphing. And wouldn't you know it? Object recognition requires you to focus both eyes on the same thing. That seriously slows down detail collection. Hence photographic memory becomes much harder, easier to store flat text representations than a whole object scene plus the data.
I'm sure science will figure it out sooner or later, just like the nose, it's more about recognition of geometry than 2d symbol interacts with 2d receptor. It'll be another golden age soon as we realize we can't remove the subjective observer from our observations. Once we do that, we can stop staring at the 2d shadow on Plato's cave wall, and turn around and start studying the causes.
We are, in fact, trapped within the simple 2d reality that is produced by the senses.
Sheesh, i always sound so corny. I guess it's better than the dry, monotone, technical, purely objective, autistic academic stuff i did in university:)
Layering is actually one of the things i'm having a design problem around. Of course, i'm going about it differently. Instead of modeling on the neurological level, i'm trying to model the abstract level on which cognition takes place. More Python than Assembler, and of course i'm writing the design proof in python.
I figured that instead of writing a book to explain my theories of cognition and awareness, i'd just write a working model. I'm also looking forward to using it to model feature detectors in the visual system, i've got the glimmers of an algorithm for a binocular object detector i want to test out.
I'm currently working on a development system based on human cognition.
The hard part is finding the lowest common building blocks. A good clean simple design should be scalable in both the micro and macro directions.
Once we find the most efficient ways to do something that is required at all layers (such as communication,cpu,motherboard,programs,modules,internet) we can optimize the hell out of those functions, as well as build specific cores for them.
I really should stop talking my mouth off and actually code something. Believe me, i speak logic languages a lot better than i do english:)
Let us say that what a person thinks they want, and what they end up with are usually two different things.
People end up either with their known or their unknown. Depending on co-operation(mutual known) or mutual exploitation(opposites).
People's hearts may tell them one thing, but the gross energetic attraction of the physical body, i.e., the gravity of the body, overpowers the slight pull of the heart.
Only when our energetic body(in terms of physics) is balanced will we stop attracting individuals to complete us. A relationship is stronger the more you work at it.
DNA doesn't have to work hard at it's relationship. It's attraction is based solely on complementariness, which is why it can get ripped apart so easily.
The laws of the game might be mutable. It's a little cocky and arrogant of science to think that all the important numbers in science haven't evolved since the beginning, since everything else evolves/revolves.
You see, the major problem with relationships, is that everybody is in one. So no model of relationships will be accepted until people accept they're not as in control as they thought they are. I've got explanations for almost all the relationships i see out there, doesn't mean anybody will admit to them. You see, because we match upon our lines of division, we must aknowledge our vices and shortcomings and be truthful with ourselves to see our division and how we're attempting to patch it up.
Current humans, i've noticed, seem to abhor the truth. The majority of the population makes fun of autistics because they lack 'social finesse'. They are seemingly incapable of lying and deceit to cover up one's own shortcomings and to disguise the fact that we see shortcomings in others.
Who's talking about hospitals? I didn't know that's where people head first when they start to get a bit emotional.
If you've ever worked for emergency call centres or the public service, i'm sure you would have had some first hand experience.
It doesn't make you totally looney, it just sets you off balance a bit. Kinda figured that would happen since the moon pulls on water, and we're sacks of water.
The existence of god can be proven in a reliable manner.
Unfortunately, it takes dedication and understanding. Yoga is one formalized system to achieve god.
The only proof for god is within yourself, as jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is in you."
There's lots of haphazard road maps out there, but yoga is the most scientifically organized.
YMMV, it takes some people decades. Note, just because you're good at yoga poses means nothing about yoga as science. A good example is David Swenson. Very right sided and precise, amazing at yoga postures, even in his imbalance.
You can tell when he found god not by the postures that he was capable of, but by the openness of his smile. His brow lifted, his forehead now clear and open minded, and his eyes bathed in light.
Just because you don't understand relationships, doesn't mean that others don't.
The only problem with a good working model of relationships is that nobody would believe it. They all seem to think they've got some sort of free will and aren't subject to the laws of physics like every other piece of energy in the universe.
The other hard part of the model is the fact that you can't see what you can't understand.
Do you think the man in a eye-brow height relationship will believe that he's a wuss and that's why he's dominated by his spouse?
It works pointing it out on other people, but people are blind to what they can't see in themselves. Sort of makes sense, don't it?
There's a big difference between the science of astrology, which does involve a mathematical model, and the astrology from Gabby Betty in the local paper.
Again, left siders, (those attracted to the left sided sciences) aren't very organized. Structure and definition are a right sided thing.
Maybe they get that deep intuition because of the planetary alignment at their birth!:)
Why is it that 'skeptical' thinkers reasons for disbelief usually always have something to do with the other person being evil? They seem to assume that all astrologers are 'fakers' to get peoples money.
It took me a while to realize that all those things lurking in the shadows went away when i actually opened my eyes.
Perhaps astrology is evidenced based, but the civilizations that gave birth to it no longer exist.
Nowadays people just follow rules not understanding why or where they came from.
Science can't say Astrology is ridiculous for being based on the fact that gravity from celestial objects has an effect on us, when science doesn't even understand what gravity is.
It takes a lot of math to draw. It's just not expressed in mathematical formulas.
It's very common for people to be able to speak a language but not write it.
I'm actually working on the design for a data visualization system. Separating data from logic, it allows you to view data in novel ways, including several different views of the data set at the same time.
I'll be using it to design my dome house, as i want to be able to calculate and visualize solar heat/gain across the year with different layouts, different materials and different quantities of materials.
I'm also going to use it for recipes.:)
I'm hoping to have the design nailed down shortly so that i can release it. It's designed on openess, and co-operation.
I find that certain people are good at certain types of coding, levels of architecture if you will. The system is designed so that people can contribute code at whatever level they're at. So people could code data acquisition units (web scrapers, media crawlers, etc...), display code (3d visualization, bar graphs, scatter plots, conceptual), or manipulation units (math formulas, 3d transforms, database operations) etc...
Some people are just good at rearranging and using programs that have already been written, they'd be free to do that as well.
So the design has to be simple, like a fractal, the complexity will arise in the iterations. As anyone knows, simple elegant code isn't so simple to write.:)
I hope to have the design down soon, within the next month. So i can start developing it inside of itself. Once i get it to the point of independence, and it has all the tools it needs for growth, i'll release it. So others can help it learn. In essence, it is based on humans, and is designed to be able to deal with all the data that humans deal with. So everyone can program their viewpoint into it, and their collection of data(everybody collects, it's what god told us to do[don't shoot the messenger, i'm just repeating what's in the bible and what everybody does]). So you can visualize data in any way that some one can conceive. Unfortunately, it does sound a bit Skynet-ish.
I might like to play around at higher levels with simulating the how visual system interprets reality, but i'd rather some geeky cognitive person write the feature detectors and filters (gaussian etc...) instead of me:)
Long story short. If you've got access to the data and know some python you can visualize it anyway you want. If you don't know any python, well, then it depends on how much the system has already grown. Might be as simple as touch->create new view->select data->select visualization.
I suggest the Alexander Technique.
I've never tried it, but it emphasizes self discovery.
I had a friend once who had flat feet.
He always had his head in the clouds.
He built a nice facade, but with all the energy in the facade, he had no backbone.
He couldn't support himself properly.
There's nothing wrong with flat feet. You don't need arches when you aren't standing.
Once my friend learned to stand up on his own, people didn't perceive him as two dimensional anymore.
The verdict is still out on his clicking jaw, but i'll let you know.
Slashdot Mirror
I currently disagree with a large part of the visual model we currently have. There seems to be a big emphasis on equating the brain with a computer, and thereby limiting our models to the constraints against computers.
I believe (unfounded as of yet) that the feature detectors do not just measure 2d simple geometric shapes. I think this happens when we keep thinking of light as a particle. Nature wouldn't limit itself to one modality of light.
I believe that a lot of feature detectors take movement(spirals) and geometry(lots of pentagons) and translate it into simple static symbols visualized as a 2d surface. The brain then makes a new 3d static representation from two of these condensed static views.
Reality might be running at 5Ghz, most of us only refresh ~60/sec :) Part of meditation is learning how to slow down one's consumption of the outside world, slowing helps to show the movement in everything. Most people just pop acid though.
It's a weird phenomenon, but as you run your brain faster, 3d object recognition goes downhill. Object recognition is temporally computationally complex. Before i learned how to see, i often wondered if i could even think while 'seeing'. Now, i'm still pretty dumb while i'm seeing, it's like i'm average:). I was staring at a receipt trying to figure out a tip, and all i could see was a crumpled piece of paper in my hand, so i gave up. So i seriously can't do math when seeing, but if i shut off object processing, i can go back to doing math in my head, and using the viewscreen for visualization and graphing. And wouldn't you know it? Object recognition requires you to focus both eyes on the same thing. That seriously slows down detail collection. Hence photographic memory becomes much harder, easier to store flat text representations than a whole object scene plus the data.
I'm sure science will figure it out sooner or later, just like the nose, it's more about recognition of geometry than 2d symbol interacts with 2d receptor. It'll be another golden age soon as we realize we can't remove the subjective observer from our observations. Once we do that, we can stop staring at the 2d shadow on Plato's cave wall, and turn around and start studying the causes.
We are, in fact, trapped within the simple 2d reality that is produced by the senses.
Sheesh, i always sound so corny. I guess it's better than the dry, monotone, technical, purely objective, autistic academic stuff i did in university :)
Layering is actually one of the things i'm having a design problem around. Of course, i'm going about it differently. Instead of modeling on the neurological level, i'm trying to model the abstract level on which cognition takes place. More Python than Assembler, and of course i'm writing the design proof in python.
I figured that instead of writing a book to explain my theories of cognition and awareness, i'd just write a working model. I'm also looking forward to using it to model feature detectors in the visual system, i've got the glimmers of an algorithm for a binocular object detector i want to test out.
The hard part is finding the lowest common building blocks. A good clean simple design should be scalable in both the micro and macro directions.
Once we find the most efficient ways to do something that is required at all layers (such as communication,cpu,motherboard,programs,modules,internet) we can optimize the hell out of those functions, as well as build specific cores for them.
I really should stop talking my mouth off and actually code something. Believe me, i speak logic languages a lot better than i do english :)
Run slashcow, run!
Don't make the refuse of a science into the pinnacle of it, Straw man you know?
Science is the people who don't understand something, getting together and inventing a language to teach them what they don't know.
At the very least, can you compute the present location of the 7 major heavenly bodies?
People end up either with their known or their unknown. Depending on co-operation(mutual known) or mutual exploitation(opposites).
People's hearts may tell them one thing, but the gross energetic attraction of the physical body, i.e., the gravity of the body, overpowers the slight pull of the heart.
Only when our energetic body(in terms of physics) is balanced will we stop attracting individuals to complete us. A relationship is stronger the more you work at it.
DNA doesn't have to work hard at it's relationship. It's attraction is based solely on complementariness, which is why it can get ripped apart so easily.
The laws of the game might be mutable. It's a little cocky and arrogant of science to think that all the important numbers in science haven't evolved since the beginning, since everything else evolves/revolves.
You see, the major problem with relationships, is that everybody is in one. So no model of relationships will be accepted until people accept they're not as in control as they thought they are. I've got explanations for almost all the relationships i see out there, doesn't mean anybody will admit to them. You see, because we match upon our lines of division, we must aknowledge our vices and shortcomings and be truthful with ourselves to see our division and how we're attempting to patch it up.
Current humans, i've noticed, seem to abhor the truth. The majority of the population makes fun of autistics because they lack 'social finesse'. They are seemingly incapable of lying and deceit to cover up one's own shortcomings and to disguise the fact that we see shortcomings in others.
If you've ever worked for emergency call centres or the public service, i'm sure you would have had some first hand experience.
It doesn't make you totally looney, it just sets you off balance a bit. Kinda figured that would happen since the moon pulls on water, and we're sacks of water.
All perfectly good reasons for settling.
A good engineer works a problem out in his head first. Though before matter you know :)
Nice to see some experiential logic around here.
Unfortunately, it takes dedication and understanding. Yoga is one formalized system to achieve god.
The only proof for god is within yourself, as jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is in you."
There's lots of haphazard road maps out there, but yoga is the most scientifically organized.
YMMV, it takes some people decades. Note, just because you're good at yoga poses means nothing about yoga as science. A good example is David Swenson. Very right sided and precise, amazing at yoga postures, even in his imbalance.
You can tell when he found god not by the postures that he was capable of, but by the openness of his smile. His brow lifted, his forehead now clear and open minded, and his eyes bathed in light.
The only problem with a good working model of relationships is that nobody would believe it. They all seem to think they've got some sort of free will and aren't subject to the laws of physics like every other piece of energy in the universe.
The other hard part of the model is the fact that you can't see what you can't understand.
Do you think the man in a eye-brow height relationship will believe that he's a wuss and that's why he's dominated by his spouse?
It works pointing it out on other people, but people are blind to what they can't see in themselves. Sort of makes sense, don't it?
Just because you haven't experienced something, doesn't mean other's haven't.
You don't believe, that's fine, you have no reason to.
Just don't make the same mistake you're claiming that 'they' are making, asserting their unfounded beliefs on someone else.
Life is a lot weirder if you let it be.
It amazes me how people look for what's missing outside of themselves.
Acceptance of differences is what we should practice with everybody, why should that define a romantic relationship?
There's a big difference between the science of astrology, which does involve a mathematical model, and the astrology from Gabby Betty in the local paper.
Again, left siders, (those attracted to the left sided sciences) aren't very organized. Structure and definition are a right sided thing.
Maybe some day, the two will come together.
What bold statements you make, do you perchance have any science to back you up?
We need a new term for religious fanatics that belong to the science cult.
Why criticize a science for having lost it's scientists?
Besides, it's a left sided science. It's originators were not too keen on structure.
Why is it that 'skeptical' thinkers reasons for disbelief usually always have something to do with the other person being evil? They seem to assume that all astrologers are 'fakers' to get peoples money.
It took me a while to realize that all those things lurking in the shadows went away when i actually opened my eyes.
Science is great and all, but discounting all of humanities observations over millenia is kind of patronizing and idiotic.
Science only studies things that scientists want to study, or what other's will pay them to study.
Maybe he was right? He seems to have ended up a very important figure in the development of western civilization wouldn't you say?
Nowadays people just follow rules not understanding why or where they came from.
Science can't say Astrology is ridiculous for being based on the fact that gravity from celestial objects has an effect on us, when science doesn't even understand what gravity is.
Love makes the world go round.
It takes a lot of math to draw. It's just not expressed in mathematical formulas. It's very common for people to be able to speak a language but not write it.
I'll be using it to design my dome house, as i want to be able to calculate and visualize solar heat/gain across the year with different layouts, different materials and different quantities of materials.
I'm also going to use it for recipes. :)
I'm hoping to have the design nailed down shortly so that i can release it. It's designed on openess, and co-operation.
I find that certain people are good at certain types of coding, levels of architecture if you will. The system is designed so that people can contribute code at whatever level they're at. So people could code data acquisition units (web scrapers, media crawlers, etc...), display code (3d visualization, bar graphs, scatter plots, conceptual), or manipulation units (math formulas, 3d transforms, database operations) etc...
Some people are just good at rearranging and using programs that have already been written, they'd be free to do that as well.
So the design has to be simple, like a fractal, the complexity will arise in the iterations. As anyone knows, simple elegant code isn't so simple to write. :)
I hope to have the design down soon, within the next month. So i can start developing it inside of itself. Once i get it to the point of independence, and it has all the tools it needs for growth, i'll release it. So others can help it learn. In essence, it is based on humans, and is designed to be able to deal with all the data that humans deal with. So everyone can program their viewpoint into it, and their collection of data(everybody collects, it's what god told us to do[don't shoot the messenger, i'm just repeating what's in the bible and what everybody does]). So you can visualize data in any way that some one can conceive. Unfortunately, it does sound a bit Skynet-ish.
I might like to play around at higher levels with simulating the how visual system interprets reality, but i'd rather some geeky cognitive person write the feature detectors and filters (gaussian etc...) instead of me :)
Long story short. If you've got access to the data and know some python you can visualize it anyway you want. If you don't know any python, well, then it depends on how much the system has already grown. Might be as simple as touch->create new view->select data->select visualization.
I suggest the Alexander Technique. I've never tried it, but it emphasizes self discovery.
I had a friend once who had flat feet. He always had his head in the clouds.
He built a nice facade, but with all the energy in the facade, he had no backbone. He couldn't support himself properly.
There's nothing wrong with flat feet. You don't need arches when you aren't standing.
Once my friend learned to stand up on his own, people didn't perceive him as two dimensional anymore. The verdict is still out on his clicking jaw, but i'll let you know.