The Representation of Knowledge

The Central Information system is envisioned at a repository of information and experience, from library books for general reading, a computer database to map topics and indices of the materials available, and interactive computer programs and instructional video “how-to's” to relate what we have learned, in sufficient detail that the system can almost become self-instructive.
Post Reply
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

The Representation of Knowledge

Post by LoneBear » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:41 pm

I've been playing around with PostgreSQL, and having a lot of fun with all the features, and the possibilities for what one could do with it has been on my mind. I was in that hypnogogic state, the half-awake, half-asleep state, just watching my flow of thoughts and I saw something go by that looked very similar to database programming--except for its organic nature. Consciousness followed it out of curiosity, and I found myself looking inside my own brain, watching how it worked--and it is actually really simple when you come down to it. And I'd bet I could simulate it with just 3 database relations--4 tops.

Going to try to explain it while it is fresh in my mind...

There are two components, like yin-yang or time-space. The yang side is localized in the neuron nucleus. Clusters of these cells form a type of object with attributes. Normally that relationship is analogous to the adjective-noun relationship, where attributes qualify an object. And the object can be anything--any hard concept that a person defines, like a noun. But the attributes, the "adjectives" for these nouns WERE NOT localized qualifiers, they were more like linkages. Example: a red flower. What I saw is that "red" is not the attribute--it is another subjective object, that is linked to the flower by a "color" attribute. It's not a verb, nor what I would qualify as a "function" as it does not return anything--it just acts as a kind of association between the cells, with the filaments on the neurons being those attributes. Axons and dendrites.

The yin component is in the mind, not the brain, but is the same thing. It is basically a rule-type system that has two forms, a "hard" and "soft" version. The hard version has a direct connection--like the ends of "color" attaching to red and flower. There is also a soft version that is rule based. A better analogy would be a family, made of mother, father, son and daughter. But what about grandparents? A hard link would connect the son and daughter directly to the parents of the mother and father (where parents are referenced as son/daughter with mother/father). The soft link is a general rule that says something like the grandparents = mother and father of your mother and father. It still makes the same connection, but does not require the brain to hard-wire it by running the connecting filaments.

Now it DOES seem to run those hard connections when a concept is heavily used. If you're always talking about your grandparents, it will stop using the soft rule and just connect it directly, so access is almost instant. The problem with that is you get FIXED in your views... in order to get rid of that connection, the actual, physical link in the brain has to be discontinued.

When you theorize, you create all these soft rules to see how things work out. After you get comfortable with the theory, like the Reciprocal System, it gets hard-wired, and you "grok" it. Advantage is that it takes very little storage space and the information paths can be retrieved very quickly. The disadvantage is that it makes it harder to get off the beaten track to find new relations. "Communication" is the ability to relate these soft rules to others--prerequisite being that they have the necessary ingredients to bake the cake and come to a similar conclusion from the rule.

Hop over to vMemes and Spiral Dynamics for a second... you can see how this works. A person that is comfortable in a particular vMeme has all his paths hard-wired. Religious belief, corporate job, whatever. They won't leave that vMeme until they become dissatisfied with the answers being provided, which usually takes some clock time. As the "hard facts" become easily accessed, over time those pathways become less and less used, and eventually start to break down. When we go searching for an answer again, on those degenerating paths, the hardwired paths are no longer fully useable, so it goes back to the soft rule system ("It's more of a 'guideline' than a law.") But usually there is much more information in the brain at that time, from internal and external experience, so when the soft rule runs, it leads to a different conclusion, starting a "theory" instead of a hard fact--the open mind, but the RULE now satisfies the answer, while the original hard link no longer can.

There seems to be some kind of "critical mass" to rule use--the more rules that come into play, the more rules become available and it sort of causes a cascade collapse of the hard linkages, resulting in that "dark night of the soul," which is a breakdown of those hard linkages. Some kind of an ionization level, like a magnetic field (or perhaps kundalini) from the heaver use of the yin aspect over the yang "objects." Dark nights tend to last a few weeks because the brain is in the process of doing some physical rewiring, to break down the old connections and establish new ones.

As you come out of the Dark Night, your psyche feels expanded with a lot of room to think--literally, that is so. as the number of hard wired connections has been greatly reduced and you're running on primarily "soft rules" to develop a new world view. As you get more comfortable with the "answers" a vMeme provides, you build more and more hard connections until you end up in the same situation. Just seems to be the way the brain is designed to operate.

It seems to be the exposure to new information that moves people through the vMemes. If you're not exposed to new information, the rules will always return the same results as the old hard links. People of habit fall into the latter category; religious church goers, etc. The internet has gone a long way into helping people move through the vMemes through search engines, which can return results that are logically consistent but unexpected. Comedy does the same thing--makes linkages where none were thought possible, which makes it a good start for religious pilgrimage! The Minbari had it right.

Before I lose my internal "view"... let me make this projective geometry correspondence: yang = point = object/subject = spatial location, yin = plane = function = temporal force field, linkage = motion = line = association. Appears to be working in 3 dimensions.

All you would really need to store information on our computer systems are a handful of things: something analogous to spatial locations (unique concepts), something like temporal locations (archetypes) that are manifest in the spatial locations as associative lists (attributes). You could also link the spatial concepts back to the cosmic side, which has some interesting results... it would end up creating associations between archetypes (gods and their lineage, to begin with), which would eventuate into a pattern that would be cloned into the personal psyche, creating a unique "identity"--the original archetypes, made in the psyche in the "image" of the originals, but unique to you. Without those archetypes, it would be a one-way street--you could never "individuate."

And that's why we need Gods!

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Structuring Information

Post by LoneBear » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:42 pm

I've been fiddling around with my "neuron" dream, trying to come up with a structural model that can be used on a computer.

It can be done with just 3 tables:
  • valuing_entity, something to which we assign a value (material/spatial side of things). Like a subject (axon) or object (dendrite).
  • functional_entity, an object that can be projected onto a valuing_entity to cause change (cosmic/temporal relationship). Like the synaptic cleft or predicate.
  • association, a list relating the valuing_entities with the functional_entity. The connectivity; axon, synapse, dendrite.
I found you can cram it all into just ONE table... neuron(id,name,comment,value,function,role,player), which can define pretty much any type of association I can conceive of--but with some catches...

In order to have a self-referential system, there is only ONE way to start, and that is UNITY--the first entity that must only reference itself, "god". Once you have something defined, you can define other things based on it. Interesting that it makes god very STS!

Next catch is that it needs a kind of BIOS--a hard-coded set of rules (Replicator "base code") to build the inferences. I thought it would be rather nifty if I could come up with a structure that, when exposed to sensation and intuition would "define itself," but that doesn't seem to be the case. It appears to require a template--an archetype--that has the base patterns and inferences that can be used to "boot" the system. Got me thinking... in computer terms, the psyche is a somewhat simple structure:

class archetype {};
class complex implements archetype {};
class neurosis extends complex {};

The archetypes provide the basic definitions and functions for life. ("complex" is the psychological complex, not the number.)

The complex "implements" the archetype in space/time. Since archetype is only a template, that template has to be realized, or "reified" as they use in topic maps (to make real).

The neurosis "customizes" the complex based on experience, values and other factors derived from the sensation and intuition, so everyone pretty much ends up unique--but there are limits to what the customization can do; it CANNOT exceed the functionality of the complex or archetypal template.

That's pretty much were people are this day, "3rd density," with more neurosis than archetypal influence--but that APPEARS to be part of the evolution of consciousness. The problems arise when a complex tries to add a neurosis that is outside the scope of its defining archetype. Like the ego trying to perform the functions of the Self. Generates a lot of buggy code that can, at best, emulate SOME of the functions, but most are beyond the scope of what the neurosis can do--it just doesn't have access to the variables and functions available in the Self archetype.

Take a look at the process of self-realization, from what the "masters" have taught... first, look at the process, "self-realization." To realize (reify)--find out what you got from the archetype, and what you added on as a neurosis. Now neurosis is not a bad thing--when the customization is in the correct complex. Part of that realization is discovering what your customizations to the psyche have done, and if they are efficient in the complex where they are defined and functioning. If they are not, they need to be cut and pasted into the appropriate complex. Of course when you do that, you often find that you don't need the customization at all, and get a good laugh out of how dumb you were, since it was there all along. But that's part of the process.

In Spiral Dynamics, that's basically what "Tier 2" is about--getting a view of the complexes, to see what's in them and if they are appropriate. Sort of like cleaning up your desktop, and getting things put in the proper folders. But like Larson discovered when he had a firm definition for the "physical" universe, there will be some things that do not fit into the existing structures. Those are the things you created as NEW functions, and functions APPROPRIATE to the complex they are in, or even totally new complexes--not based on existing archetypes. That is your "individuality" or "identity." This is the transition point from homo sapiens to homo novus, what they call "4th density." It is the point where YOU can create a template of your own, based on your "customizations." A template, or archetype, based on what YOU created, not only what the universe provided.

This triggers a major change in the psyche. A symbolic "chasm" develops between your archetypal templates and the Universal ones--a process of "individuation." At that point, the individuation portion of the psyche can operate independently from the defining archetypal laws. You have, in essence, created your own Universe.

It all seems to come down to... it's not HOW you store information, it is how you ORGANIZE it.

tymeflyz
Discens
Discens
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: The Representation of Knowledge

Post by tymeflyz » Wed May 13, 2015 6:54 pm

LB this is very interesting concept you have and explained well ! thanks.

Have your read An Occult Physiology By Rudolf Steiner?

Lecture 1: The Being of Man
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19110320p01.html
I'm interested in your thoughts and or opinion.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: The Representation of Knowledge

Post by LoneBear » Thu May 14, 2015 8:58 am

tymeflyz wrote:Have your read An Occult Physiology By Rudolf Steiner?
I'm interested in your thoughts and or opinion.
I have read a lot of the Theosophy and Anthroposophy stuff in the past, but Gopi is the Steiner expert here.

Gopi, perhaps you can comment on this?
4 8 15 16 23 42

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The Representation of Knowledge

Post by Gopi » Sat May 16, 2015 3:35 pm

Tymeflyz wrote:Have your read An Occult Physiology By Rudolf Steiner?
I had read this before, and it is quite interesting.

The aspects where the Duality of man is described, can be derived as a direct consequence of the Reciprocal system... where we have the outer senses, consisting of the brain and the spinal cord, and the inner senses, consisting of the inner organs and the solar plexus. The brain is necessary for concepts, while the inner senses are used in the sense of "gut feeling". So there is a definite polarity there. In addition, the same polarity is extended to describe the reciprocal relation of the pineal gland and the pituitary gland, which act as "knots" where two streams have their center: the stream of the soul life and the stream of bodily life respectively. One deals with the formation of ideas and concepts, while the other deals with the physical organism which can receive these concepts.

The connection with the planets to the inner organs has been around for a long time, and they are highlighted pretty accurately in my opinion.
Image Image
It is time.

Post Reply