手册

数学

发现

Andrius Kulikauskas

  • ms@ms.lt
  • +370 607 27 665
  • My work is in the Public Domain for all to share freely.

Lietuvių kalba

Software

Book.20170929TimeSpace-Draft istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 19:29 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 0-35 eilutės:
------------------------

Given this conceptual framework for decision-making, we discuss why time and space are different, and in particular, offer an explanation why we experience time in one dimension and space in three dimensions. We also consider how individual minds construct compatible distinctions of systems and subsystems, and thus compatible understandings of time and space.

Time and Space are extremely similar.

The mind experiences Time and Space.
* not sequentially.
* in 5 different modes.
* in 2 opposite directions.

Causality is expressed dynamically in Time as past and future, and statically in Space as outside and inside.

We experience Time as the accumulation of knowledge.

We experience the present as an atomic unit of knowledge.

In Time, the present makes ambiguous the known and the unknown.

In Space, the boundary disambiguate the known and the unknown.

We experience Time most viscerally backwards from effect to cause.

We experience Time theoretically forwards as sequences of atomic events.

Our mind is contemplating Decision-Making when it is conscious of contemplating Being.

Our mind reflects on Decision-Making by adding a conscience to observe the present.

When our mind is conscious of its contemplating Decision-Making, then it unites Time and Space and collapses the Known and Unknown by having No expectations and thus is contemplating God.

The present time makes compatible the forward and backward directions of time and this may explain why time is one-dimensional.

Spatial boundary disambiguates the supersystem and the subsystem and this may explain why space is three dimensional.

Knowledge of intuition can lead to knowledge of nature, just as with mathematics. A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 19:26 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 0-140 eilutės:
Submitted for [[https://philevents.org/event/show/31942 | Space and Time: An Interdisciplinary Approach]], September 29-30, 2017.

[++Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making++]

Attach:TS-01.png

By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this question by pursuing metaphysics as a cognitive science. I take our imagination's limitations as the pragmatic ground for absolute truth, document the perspectives available to us on particular issues, and develop testable models of cognitive frameworks for those issues.

I present a model in which our minds construct time and space as representations of decision-making. Both time and space suppose five perspectives which define two directions for causality: "Every effect has had its cause" but also "Not every cause has had its effects". Time expresses causality dynamically from past to future. In time, the present is given by an ambiguity between the forwards direction of time, from cause to effect, and the backwards direction of time, from effect to cause. Space expresses causality statically as an outer system determining an inner subsystem. In space, the boundary disambiguates the outer cause and the inner effect.

Attach:TS-02.png

I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Michael Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.

But humans and perhaps the great apes can moreover be conscious, that is, we can choose what we wish to be aware of. Birute Galdikas has noted how orangutang males go off to live alone, as if they were Zen Buddhists, and how they can choose to ignore people or not. We humans can choose to "step in" and immerse ourselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. I will describe us as experiencing cognitive frameworks by which we divide up what neuroscientists call our global workspace into various perspectives they may take up for a particular issue, for example, contemplating "free will" and "fate". Indeed, I will describe our conscious life as shifting amongst eight such cognitive frameworks. They substitute our world with a highly constrained abstract model of options within which we adjust parameters that subsequently trigger the workings of our involuntary, unconscious mind.

Attach:TS-03.png

What neuroscientists call the global workspace, I believe we experience intuitively as the familiar concept of everything. We can define everything by noting its four remarkable properties:

* Everything has no external context. If you put it in a box, then it includes the box. If you think it, it includes you.
* Everything has no internal structure. It can be chaotic or orderly. Thus, all statements are true about everything, for there is no structure to hold onto: Everything is hot, everything is cold, everything is good, everything is bad.
* Everything is the simplest possible algorithm, the one which has no filter but accepts all things, whatever we think of. This means that we all have the same Everything, although we may call it by different names, such as Being, Love, Meaning and so on.
* Everything is a required concept. We all have it, and appeal to it, for example, when we take a stand, which we do with regard to everything. We could not have learned of Everything, because all that we know is bounded, but Everything is unbounded. We cannot rid ourselves of it as a concept. It must have always been with us.

Attach:TS-04.png

In considering a particular issue, we divide everything into perspectives. For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Such a cycle is the basis for the scientific method: having a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, and intepreting the results.

Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. We may furthermore imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.

Attach:TS-05.png

In documenting such frameworks, I introspect my own imagination's options. I also note how I conceive the same cognitive frameworks by different representations, which are manifestly limited in their variety. Indeed, our minds do not conceive the division directly but must employ one or another representation.

For example, I can imagine the perspective of opposites coexisting as "free will" and the perspective of all being the same as "fate". Indeed, classic, intractable debates such as "free will vs. fate" are important evidence for these frameworks. Throughout history, different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.

Another representation is in terms of outside and inside. If there is an an outside of a cup, then there is also an inside. But if I fall inside the cup - if it becomes my universe - then there is only an inside. Note also that our mind slides easily from outside to inside, or from free will to fate, but not the other way around.

A third representation is in terms of theory and practice. In theory, I am detached from what I am studying, as if it were a machine that is turned off. But in practice, the machine is turned on, I am one with my experience, like a carrot going through a mill. We complement each other and are one.

Same and different are a fourth and final representation. If two cups are the same, then they must also be different. But if they are different, then they are just different. Here it is remarkable that the concept of sameness actually involves opposites coexisting, whereas the concept of difference means that all is the same. This illustrates the pitfalls of introspection because adding a layer of reflection typically reverses the direction in which our minds move.

As you will see, additional evidence for these divisions and their representations is that they serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks, and also ever reappear in classifying the basic frameworks.

Attach:TS-06.png

The Foursome, the framework for knowledge, has two representations. Idealists consider the observer's perspective, their questions, and consider Why most important and dismiss Whether as irrelevant. Materialists think in terms of answers, the observed's point of view, and so for them Whether is most real and they would eliminate Why. Kant understandably tried to straddle both points of view. The semiotician Peirce distinguished three kinds of signs. Icons leverage Whatness, indices leverage Howness and symbols leverage Whyness, but we should additionally consider the Whetherness of the signified thing itself.

Attach:TS-07.png

This attempt to document our imagination's options simply and absolutely and thereby model everything forces an economy which encourages us to consider whether time and space are simply two representations of a shared cognitive framework, namely, for decision making.

We experience time in two very different modes. We can be focused on the near past and the near future, looking slightly ahead and slightly behind, immersed in life's obligations. But in order to live the present, we need to make room for it by pushing our past back, to our values, which we may imagine as existing prior to us, and pushing our future forward, to our dreams, which may perhaps be fulfilled after we are gone. And so we create a gap that severs any practical link between long ago causes and far off effects.

Such a model distinguishes two directions in time with which we are familiar. "Every effect has had its cause" and so, practically and personally, our mind readily jumps backwards to identify causal chains. But "Not every cause has had its effects" and so, theoretically and impersonally, we imagine time marching forwards through a sequence of discrete events. Those events are defined by imagining them in the present, where both directions are available to us.

We can argue a similar model for space if we note that statically causes are ultimately external to a system whereas effects are internal to it. However, we will suggest later that in space, the boundary disambiguates the outer system and the inner subsystem, whereas in time, the present overlaps our experience of causality in the forwards and backwards directions.

Any attempts to cognitively model time and space in terms of discrete perspectives will thus have to explain how we construct what we experience as a continuum even if we might suppose that such a continuum exists. And we construct that experience by jumping around between different perspectives, both forward looking and backwards looking, rather than experience them as a continuous flow, as we have been taught to imagine.

Attach:TS-08.png

Decision-making is the cognitive activity which thereby has us circumscribe our decision point, either the present in time or the boundary in space, by which what is unknown, impersonal and theoretical becomes known, personal and practical.

Decision-making models causality by approximating the unknown with the known. It thereby fosters the ambiguity, which we experience in the present, and which arises in the study of entropy, as to whether we live in an open system or a closed system. It also relates our practical, singleminded, unconscious mind, full of knowledge, with our theoretical, multitrack, conscious mind which is able to contemplate not knowing but rather framing questions into perspectives which the unconscious mind takes up.

Attach:TS-09.png

In surveying these frameworks, I note that there is a sixsome for issues of morality. One representation, in terms of cognition, is spatial in that it has us internalize outer perspectives, such as loyalty, into inner perspectives, such as faith. Another representation, in terms of emotion, is temporal in that it has us immortalize our positive but fleeting emotions, such as beauty, as virtues of our character, such as courage.

Attach:TS-10.png

Finally, the sevensome establishes the logical square which we need for a self-standing system, including the ability to divide and thus define opposites such as true and false or good and bad. The slack in this system is represented as either increasing, as with the present in time, or decreasing, as with the boundary in space.

Attach:TS-11.png

An eighth perspective would include the possibility "all are true and all are false", in which case the system is empty, it collapses and we have the Nullsome, the division of everything into no perspectives, by which we contemplate issues of God.

Attach:TS-12.png

I have thus surveyed eight cognitive frameworks, divisions of everything, which I believe fully describe our conscious experience as a series of philosophical issues that we grapple with. I imagine that we contemplate them even in the womb, and perhaps orangutangs may likewise, and truly any system such as a cloud or galaxy tends toward the same set of options by which its conscious side may govern its unconscious side.

Attach:TS-13.png

We can then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness, shifting our minds from issue to issue, adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks. I will interpret several equations that bear on our experience of time and space.

Attach:TS-15.png

Suppose that we are engaged with issues of existence and then we become conscious of that. I will describe how our consciousness adds three perspectives so that we are now engaged with issues of decision-making.

Attach:TS-16.png

Here I will model consciousness as the ability to turn our awareness on or off. So let us conceive of the issue of existence as an algorithm, procedure or machine. Such is the representation which takes us from outside to inside. In theory, the machine is off, and then in practice, the machine is on. Thus we can combine two versions of this machine, where our mind slides from theory to practice. Note, however, that we don't ourselves experience the theoretical perspective but rather it simply keeps our outside view from becoming an inside view. Whereas we do experience the practical perspective because it has our outside view be one and the same.

Thus we see that decision-making has a causal flow from outside to inside, in the sense of How, functionality, but also a flow from theory to practice, in the sense of What seems. Here the decision point finds itself very much in the realm of practical experience. We experience the present as our ability to turn existence on, that is, to engage theory as practice.

Note also that, in that realm of practical experience, our mental direction reverses direction for we have inverted our situation, and have started from the inside of the machine as our outside, and we experience the outside as our inside.

Finally, we see that beyond our five perspectives there has opened up, in theory, a sixth slot in which we can hold, entertain and suppose a concept which we yet do not ourselves conceive.

Attach:TS-17.png

Suppose that we are engaged with issues of knowledge and then reflect on that. Our mind adds one perspective to the foursome to yield the fivesome.

Attach:TS-18.png

Here we consider our levels of knowledge - Whether, What, How, Why - as all bearing upon an object of knowledge. Thus we dedicate a new perspective to express that commonality which they share. Our experience of this object of knowledge circumscribes our decision point. And it defines the scope of our present in time or our boundary in space as comprising exactly one unit of knowledge. Thus we experience the present as a unit of knowledge.

Attach:TS-19.png

A further step of reflection takes us from decision-making to morality.

Attach:TS-20.png

Here all of the perspectives share an observer, and so we imagine that observer as above the other perspectives but focused on our experience of the decision point. In other words, the sixth perspective is our conscience. I believe that the three shifts are interlinked cyclically. As Kant observed in his Transcendental Deduction, we have a threefold accordance between first, our theoretical self, I, which he called the subjective unity of consciousness, and second, our thoughts, which he called our empirical unity of apperception, and which I claim is circumscribed by our conscience's view upon our deciding, and third, what we practically do, which he called the objective unity of transcendental apperception.

Attach:TS-21.png

In Being and Time, Heidegger discusses a similar framework in terms of modes-of-being. Both Kant and Heidegger can be understood to support my earlier description of decision-making as consciousness of questions of being.

Attach:TS-22.png

Finally, I will describe how consciousness of decision-making bring us to experience issues of God. Namely, I will show how time and space taken together make the known and the unknown both ambiguous and unambiguous so that all distinctions disappear and we are left with no perspectives, and no expectations, but simply peace, wishing for anything.

Attach:TS-23.png

We can model our emotional life as based on expectations and our resulting knowledge. If I expect something and I am wrong, then I am surprised, whereas if I am right, then I feel excited. But if it was profoundly important to me, and I am wrong, then I am distraught, but if I am right, then I feel content. And if it is too sudden for me to make an expectation, and it comes from beyond me, then I feel frightened, but if it is too strange to make an expectation, and it comes from within me, then I feel disgusted. Thus our emotional life marks a boundary disambiguating our self, what we should know, and our world, what we don't know, our feeling of sadness, contentment, and disgust on the one side, and surprise, excitement and fright, on the other side. But before we know the consequences of our expectation we feel suspense, or we simply don't have expectations and feel peace.

Temporally, we live as creatures of not knowing who experience the ambiguity between expecting (and ultimately knowing) and simply wishing and waiting and perhaps never knowing. Spatially, we live as creatures of knowing, who disambiguate the self we know and the world we don't. Taken together, we have both the ambiguity of the known and the unknown but also the disambiguity of the known and the unknown. This makes for a collapse of all distinctions and we are left with no perspectives but simply peace.

This model suggests that time and space must be kept apart so that they play their distinct roles, with time fostering ambiguity before we have knowledge, and space fostering unambiguity after we have knowledge. We also see why time, being ambiguous, might define one free dimension, whereas space, establishing disambiguity, might define three free dimensions, distinguishing the inner self, the outer world and the disambiguating boundary.

Attach:TS-24.png

In conclusion, I have presented a system of cognitive frameworks which provide a lot of metaphysical ideas on the nature of time and space. I derived these ideas through thirty-five years of careful introspection, relying also on consideration of ideas from all manner of thinkers, and overall attempting to make sense of all genuine perspectives. However, these ideas can be tested further with tools from experimental psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience and other fields. But they might also be dramatically confirmed if they proved useful in mathematics or physics, explaining, for example, why three dimensions, not more and not less, are especially rich spatially, as we know from the proofs of the Poincare conjecture.

In summary, time and space are very similar and are determined by the five perspectives we need for decision-making. We construct time and space by jumping amongst these five perspectives.

2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 13:21 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 13:20 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 135-142 eilutės:

In conclusion, I have presented a system of cognitive frameworks which provide a lot of metaphysical ideas on the nature of time and space. I derived these ideas through thirty-five years of careful introspection, relying also on consideration of ideas from all manner of thinkers, and overall attempting to make sense of all genuine perspectives. However, these ideas can be tested further with tools from experimental psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience and other fields. But they might also be dramatically confirmed if they proved useful in mathematics or physics, explaining, for example, why three dimensions, not more and not less, are especially rich spatially, as we know from the proofs of the Poincare conjecture.

In summary, time and space are very similar and are determined by the five perspectives we need for decision-making. We construct time and space by jumping amongst these five perspectives.



------------------------
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 13:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 128-134 eilutės iš
We discuss how time and space come together in a framework of expectations which grounds our emotional life.

Our mind shifts from same (time) to different (space). But also from free will (space - we set the boundary between our self and our world)
and fate (time).

Space boundary is disambiguity - separates outside and inside, unknown and known. Time boundary is ambiguity - present.

Time (not knowing)
is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space (knowing) is experienced after expectation is determined.
į:
We can model our emotional life as based on expectations and our resulting knowledge. If I expect something and I am wrong, then I am surprised, whereas if I am right, then I feel excited. But if it was profoundly important to me, and I am wrong, then I am distraught, but if I am right, then I feel content. And if it is too sudden for me to make an expectation, and it comes from beyond me, then I feel frightened, but if it is too strange to make an expectation, and it comes from within me, then I feel disgusted. Thus our emotional life marks a boundary disambiguating our self, what we should know, and our world, what we don't know, our feeling of sadness, contentment, and disgust on the one side, and surprise, excitement and fright, on the other side. But before we know the consequences of our expectation we feel suspense, or we simply don't have expectations and feel peace.

Temporally, we live as creatures of not knowing who experience the ambiguity between expecting (and ultimately knowing) and simply wishing and waiting and perhaps never knowing. Spatially, we live as creatures of knowing, who disambiguate the self we know and the world we don't. Taken together, we have both the ambiguity of the known and the unknown but also the disambiguity of the known and the unknown. This makes for a collapse of all distinctions and we are left with no perspectives but simply peace.

This model suggests that time and space must be kept apart so that they play their distinct roles, with time fostering ambiguity before we have knowledge, and space fostering unambiguity after we have knowledge. We also see why time, being ambiguous, might define one free dimension, whereas space, establishing disambiguity, might define three free dimensions, distinguishing the inner self, the outer world and the disambiguating boundary.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:52 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 100-101 eilutės:
Finally, we see that beyond our five perspectives there has opened up, in theory, a sixth slot in which we can hold, entertain and suppose a concept which we yet do not ourselves conceive.
Pridėtos 112-113 eilutės:
A further step of reflection takes us from decision-making to morality.
Pakeistos 116-117 eilutės iš
We relate this particular shift in frameworks to Kant's Transcendental Deduction and to Heidegger's discussion of modes-of-being.
į:
Here all of the perspectives share an observer, and so we imagine that observer as above the other perspectives but focused on our experience of the decision point. In other words, the sixth perspective is our conscience. I believe that the three shifts are interlinked cyclically. As Kant observed in his Transcendental Deduction, we have a threefold accordance between first, our theoretical self, I, which he called the subjective unity of consciousness, and second, our thoughts, which he called our empirical unity of apperception, and which I claim is circumscribed by our conscience's view upon our deciding, and third, what we practically do, which he called the objective unity of transcendental apperception.
Pridėtos 120-121 eilutės:
In Being and Time, Heidegger discusses a similar framework in terms of modes-of-being. Both Kant and Heidegger can be understood to support my earlier description of decision-making as consciousness of questions of being.
Pridėtos 123-124 eilutės:

Finally, I will describe how consciousness of decision-making bring us to experience issues of God. Namely, I will show how time and space taken together make the known and the unknown both ambiguous and unambiguous so that all distinctions disappear and we are left with no perspectives, and no expectations, but simply peace, wishing for anything.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:27 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 96 eilutė iš:
Thus we see that decision-making has a causal flow from outside to inside, in the sense of How, functionality, but also a flow from theory to practice, in the sense of What seems. Here the decision point finds itself very much in the realm of practical experience.
į:
Thus we see that decision-making has a causal flow from outside to inside, in the sense of How, functionality, but also a flow from theory to practice, in the sense of What seems. Here the decision point finds itself very much in the realm of practical experience. We experience the present as our ability to turn existence on, that is, to engage theory as practice.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:25 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 102-103 eilutės:
Suppose that we are engaged with issues of knowledge and then reflect on that. Our mind adds one perspective to the foursome to yield the fivesome.
Pakeista 106 eilutė iš:
Action = Unit of Acting = Knowledge minus knowledge
į:
Here we consider our levels of knowledge - Whether, What, How, Why - as all bearing upon an object of knowledge. Thus we dedicate a new perspective to express that commonality which they share. Our experience of this object of knowledge circumscribes our decision point. And it defines the scope of our present in time or our boundary in space as comprising exactly one unit of knowledge. Thus we experience the present as a unit of knowledge.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 93-98 eilutės:

Here I will model consciousness as the ability to turn our awareness on or off. So let us conceive of the issue of existence as an algorithm, procedure or machine. Such is the representation which takes us from outside to inside. In theory, the machine is off, and then in practice, the machine is on. Thus we can combine two versions of this machine, where our mind slides from theory to practice. Note, however, that we don't ourselves experience the theoretical perspective but rather it simply keeps our outside view from becoming an inside view. Whereas we do experience the practical perspective because it has our outside view be one and the same.

Thus we see that decision-making has a causal flow from outside to inside, in the sense of How, functionality, but also a flow from theory to practice, in the sense of What seems. Here the decision point finds itself very much in the realm of practical experience.

Note also that, in that realm of practical experience, our mental direction reverses direction for we have inverted our situation, and have started from the inside of the machine as our outside, and we experience the outside as our inside.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 12:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 87-105 eilutės:
Attach:TS-14.png

Our life is driven forward. I can take a stand and follow through and reflect. That has different representations. These are generated not by logical forms, as Kant believed, but something very similar - mind games. I gave one mind game. These come from those four levels of knowledge, and if you negate them.

* If there's no Why, you can't encompass something, well, if thinking can't be encompassed, then the person who is doing the thinking can't be encompassed. If thinking is significant, then being is significant; if being is significant, then doing is significant; if doing is significant, then thinking is significant. That's a kind of hamster circle.
* Another game would be constancy - let's search for constancy. Either one is constant or otherwise you never find one but then everything is constantly unconstant, so all is constant. But in order to play this game with constancy, every time I take an example and then I conclude, how do I know that it stays the same? It has to be multiply constant. So I've defined one, all and many.

This is cognition. I've talked about culture I'll talk about communication. These are mind games that we play. I'll just go quickly through them.

* If I direct my attention, then I can direct it at an object - that is something else; but then my attention can direct itself, that would be a process. But then I can choose, which is it, and that's a subject.
* Finally, if something is true, it means that it can't be hidden. Like a bottle can be hidden, but truth cannot. Truth is what is obvious, what you can't escape, what is in your face. What makes it obvious and what it is could be one and the same, in which case it is necessary. Or they could be different things, as when you have grounds and consequences, so that they are actually true. Or what could be obvious is the connection between the two, so that it is possibly true.

Each of these representations of the nullsome triggers a representation of the division of everything into three perspectives. This threesome is for issues of participation, and defines a three-cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting, as with the scientific method. There are four representations of this threesome, yielding twelve circumstances, much like Kant's twelve categories, but based not on the logical form of a statement, but rather on the following "mind games":

* True yields Necessary, Actual, Possible. Consider content (a concept) and its expression (to a view). Then what may be true (unconcealable) is the content, in which case it is necessarily true, as with proof by contradiction. Or what may be true (unconcealable) is the expression, in which case it is Actually true, as when grounds yield consequences. Or what may be true (unconcealable) is the relation between the expression and the content, in which case it is Possibly true, as in the event of consistency.
* Direct yields Object, Process, Subject. A Subject's attention may be directed by something else (an Object) or directed by itself (a Process).
* Constant yields One, All, Many. If we search for constancy, then we may find One example. Otherwise, All is constantly unconstant. But also, what we select and what we judge must stay the same, and so that must be Multiply constant.
* Significant yields Being, Doing, Thinking. If Thinking is significant (unencompassable), then so is the thinker - so is Being. If Being is significant, then so is Doing. If Doing is significant, then so is Thinking.
Pakeistos 90-92 eilutės iš
We further consider how our minds shift from one conceptual framework to another. In particular, we describe consciousness as the addition of three perspectives, so that, for example, when the mind is conscious of existence (which requires two perspectives), then it is engrossed in decision-making (which requires five perspectives).

We describe consciousness as a shift that moves us from a conceptual framework to one that has three additional perspectives to model our attention, awareness and consciousness. Our consciousness is that by which we are able to turn our awareness off or on, so that we choose whether to step-out or step-in, accordingly.
į:
Suppose that we are engaged with issues of existence and then we become conscious of that. I will describe how our consciousness adds three perspectives so that we are now engaged with issues of decision-making.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 11:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 86 eilutė iš:
We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
į:
We can then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness, shifting our minds from issue to issue, adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks. I will interpret several equations that bear on our experience of time and space.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 11:54 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 82-89 eilutės iš
At the heart of our minds is a closed, finite system by which we experience life as a cycle of eight divisions of everything.

We have documented eight divisions of everything which may be thought of as
the conceptual frameworks for basic philosophical issues: Nullsome for God, onesome for order, twosome for existence, threesome for participation, foursome for knowledge, fivesome for decision-making, sixsome for morality, and sevensome for a self-standing system.

We document a closed system of eight such conceptual frameworks which variously divide the global workspace. We suppose that our minds may operate on a map of such a system, just as we have body maps.

We document eight such cognitive frameworks as "divisions of everything" and show how the eighth division collapses into a "zeroth" division, yielding a closed cycle of frameworks. We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
į:
I have thus surveyed eight cognitive frameworks, divisions of everything, which I believe fully describe our conscious experience as a series of philosophical issues that we grapple with. I imagine that we contemplate them even in the womb, and perhaps orangutangs may likewise, and truly any system such as a cloud or galaxy tends toward the same set of options by which its conscious side may govern its unconscious side.
Pridėtos 85-86 eilutės:

We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 11:47 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 74-77 eilutės iš
Representations in terms of increasing slack (observer, time, emotion) are in terms of what are not there - and in terms of decreasing slack are in terms of what is there

The sevensome is a logical square which includes a possibility "there exists what is and there exists what is not" which defines a divided perspective and thus the activity of division and, indeed, definition
.
į:
Finally, the sevensome establishes the logical square which we need for a self-standing system, including the ability to divide and thus define opposites such as true and false or good and bad. The slack in this system is represented as either increasing, as with the present in time, or decreasing, as with the boundary in space.
Pakeista 78 eilutė iš:
An eightsome would include the possibility "all are and all are not", in which case the system is empty, and we have the Nullsome.
į:
An eighth perspective would include the possibility "all are true and all are false", in which case the system is empty, it collapses and we have the Nullsome, the division of everything into no perspectives, by which we contemplate issues of God.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 11:40 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 64-73 eilutės iš
Decision-making is the cognitive activity which thereby has us circumscribe our decision point, either the present in time or the boundary in space, by which

Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system).

Knowing is about modeling.

But knowing (unconscious) takes place through not-knowing (conscious).

Expected cause and effect - desired cause and effect
.
į:
Decision-making is the cognitive activity which thereby has us circumscribe our decision point, either the present in time or the boundary in space, by which what is unknown, impersonal and theoretical becomes known, personal and practical.

Decision-making models causality by approximating the unknown with the known. It thereby fosters the ambiguity, which we experience in the present, and which arises in the study of entropy, as to whether we live in an open system or a closed system. It also relates our practical, singleminded, unconscious mind, full of knowledge, with our theoretical, multitrack, conscious mind which is able to contemplate not knowing but rather framing questions into perspectives which the unconscious mind takes up
.
Pakeista 70 eilutė iš:
Sixsome representations: internalization (knowing) - inner and outer perspectives (space) - immortalization of emotions and virtues (time). Note that immortalization is in terms of negation (emotions - beauty, intimacy, love are negations) thus not-knowing.
į:
In surveying these frameworks, I note that there is a sixsome for issues of morality. One representation, in terms of cognition, is spatial in that it has us internalize outer perspectives, such as loyalty, into inner perspectives, such as faith. Another representation, in terms of emotion, is temporal in that it has us immortalize our positive but fleeting emotions, such as beauty, as virtues of our character, such as courage.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 11:15 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 54-57 eilutės iš


In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes
to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
į:
We experience time in two very different modes. We can be focused on the near past and the near future, looking slightly ahead and slightly behind, immersed in life's obligations. But in order to live the present, we need to make room for it by pushing our past back, to our values, which we may imagine as existing prior to us, and pushing our future forward, to our dreams, which may perhaps be fulfilled after we are gone. And so we create a gap that severs any practical link between long ago causes and far off effects.

Such a model distinguishes two directions in time with which we are familiar. "Every effect has had its cause" and so, practically and personally, our mind readily jumps backwards to identify causal chains. But "Not every cause has had its effects" and so, theoretically and impersonally, we imagine time marching forwards through a sequence of discrete events. Those events are defined by imagining them in the present, where both directions are available to us.

We can argue a similar model for space if we note that statically causes are ultimately external to a system whereas effects are internal to it. However, we will suggest later that in space, the boundary disambiguates the outer system and the inner subsystem, whereas in time, the present overlaps our experience of causality in the forwards and backwards directions.

Any attempts to cognitively model time and space in terms of discrete perspectives will thus have to explain how we construct what we experience as a continuum even if we might suppose that such a continuum exists. And we construct that experience by jumping around between different perspectives, both forward looking and backwards looking, rather than experience them as a continuous flow, as we have been taught to imagine.
Pridėtos 63-64 eilutės:

Decision-making is the cognitive activity which thereby has us circumscribe our decision point, either the present in time or the boundary in space, by which
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 52-54 eilutės iš
Trying to explain everything forces economy - result: decision making is most simple - same structure serves both space and time.

We describe time and space as
two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
į:
This attempt to document our imagination's options simply and absolutely and thereby model everything forces an economy which encourages us to consider whether time and space are simply two representations of a shared cognitive framework, namely, for decision making.



In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 47-48 eilutės:

The Foursome, the framework for knowledge, has two representations. Idealists consider the observer's perspective, their questions, and consider Why most important and dismiss Whether as irrelevant. Materialists think in terms of answers, the observed's point of view, and so for them Whether is most real and they would eliminate Why. Kant understandably tried to straddle both points of view. The semiotician Peirce distinguished three kinds of signs. Icons leverage Whatness, indices leverage Howness and symbols leverage Whyness, but we should additionally consider the Whetherness of the signified thing itself.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:36 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 38-46 eilutės iš
Another representation is in terms of outside and inside. If there is an an outside, then there is also an inside.


the recurrence of rely on their rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
* Classic debates which recur throughout the history of philosophy.
* Different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.
* Basic frameworks serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks
.
* Basic frameworks reappear
in classifying the basic frameworks.
* We can introspectively explore the basic frameworks as complete sets of possibilities for our thinking.
į:
Another representation is in terms of outside and inside. If there is an an outside of a cup, then there is also an inside. But if I fall inside the cup - if it becomes my universe - then there is only an inside. Note also that our mind slides easily from outside to inside, or from free will to fate, but not the other way around.

A third representation is
in terms of theory and practice. In theory, I am detached from what I am studying, as if it were a machine that is turned off. But in practice, the machine is turned on, I am one with my experience, like a carrot going through a mill. We complement each other and are one.

Same and different are a fourth and final representation. If two cups are the same, then they must also be different. But if they are different, then they are just different. Here it is remarkable that the concept of sameness actually involves opposites coexisting, whereas the concept of difference means that all is the same. This illustrates the pitfalls of introspection because adding a layer of reflection typically reverses the direction in which our minds move.

As you will see, additional evidence for these divisions and their representations is that they serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks, and also ever reappear in classifying the basic frameworks.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:25 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 34-41 eilutės iš
We rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
į:
In documenting such frameworks, I introspect my own imagination's options. I also note how I conceive the same cognitive frameworks by different representations, which are manifestly limited in their variety. Indeed, our minds do not conceive the division directly but must employ one or another representation.

For example, I can imagine the perspective of opposites coexisting as "free will" and the perspective of all being the same as "fate". Indeed, classic, intractable debates such as "free will vs. fate" are important evidence for these frameworks. Throughout history, different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.

Another representation is in terms of outside and inside. If there is an an outside, then there is also an inside.


the recurrence of rely on their
rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:15 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 30 eilutė iš:
Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. But we may also imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.
į:
Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. We may furthermore imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 28-44 eilutės iš
For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why.

How can we define
the most basic definitions in terms of which all other definitions might be defined? We argue that "divisions of everything" are a nonverbal language of mental activities which evoke sets of perspectives that define fundamental philosophical issues, including definition itself.

We look for the most basic definitions by thinking most abstractly. If we remove all of the particulars of whatever we are thinking, then what is left? What is left are the relationships between the possible perspectives which
we might take. We rely on the fact that our imagination is extremely limited, at least as regards abstract thinking.

For example, in thinking about existence, we need at least two points of view. On the one hand, we need to be able to consider the question of existence: Maybe a chair exists and maybe not. On the other hand, we need to be able to assert an answer: If it exists, then it exists, and if not, then not. In general, we have one point of view where opposites coexist, as in free will, and another point of view, as in fate, where all things are the same. We note that our mind easily slips from a perspective of free will into a perspective of fate, but not the other way around.

We have collected such frameworks. Curiously, there are very few of them. And so we can speak of divisions of everything into two or three or four perspectives. Many philosophers appeal to a three-cycle by which we take a stand, follow through and reflect, as with the scientific method. This is the framework which arises in contemplating issues of participation.

Our mind has four perspectives by which we consider issues of knowledge: Whether, What, How, Why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. But we may also imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.

More generally, in exploring the imagination, we consider the ways that we can divide everything into perspectives, such as free will and fate. This yields conceptual frameworks which describe our state of mind when we grapple with various issues, for example:
* In considering existence, we need two points of view: we want to question whether or not something exists, but we also want to answer definitively.
* In considering participation, we need a cycle of three points of view, as with the scientific method: we take a stand, follow through, and reflect.
* In considering knowledge, we need four points of view: whether, what, how and why.
į:
In considering a particular issue, we divide everything into perspectives. For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Such a cycle is the basis for the scientific method: having a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, and intepreting the results.

Issues
of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. But we may also imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.

Attach:TS-05
.png
Ištrintos 39-40 eilutės:

Attach:TS-05.png
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:10 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.
į:
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Michael Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:09 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 15 eilutė iš:
But humans and perhaps the great apes can moreover be conscious, that is, they can choose what they wish to be aware of. Birute Galdikas has noted how orangutang males go off to live alone, as if they were Zen Buddhists, and how they can choose to ignore people or not. We humans can choose to "step in" and immerse ourselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. I will describe us as experiencing cognitive frameworks by which we divide up what neuroscientists call our global workspace into various perspectives they may take up for a particular issue, for example, contemplating "free will" and "fate". Indeed, I will describe our conscious life as shifting amongst eight such cognitive frameworks. They substitute our world with a highly constrained abstract model of options within which we adjust parameters that subsequently trigger the workings of our involuntary, unconscious mind.
į:
But humans and perhaps the great apes can moreover be conscious, that is, we can choose what we wish to be aware of. Birute Galdikas has noted how orangutang males go off to live alone, as if they were Zen Buddhists, and how they can choose to ignore people or not. We humans can choose to "step in" and immerse ourselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. I will describe us as experiencing cognitive frameworks by which we divide up what neuroscientists call our global workspace into various perspectives they may take up for a particular issue, for example, contemplating "free will" and "fate". Indeed, I will describe our conscious life as shifting amongst eight such cognitive frameworks. They substitute our world with a highly constrained abstract model of options within which we adjust parameters that subsequently trigger the workings of our involuntary, unconscious mind.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 7 eilutė iš:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this pragmatically by taking our imagination's limitations as the ground for absolute truth, developing models of cognitive frameworks which can be variously tested, and pursuing metaphysics as a cognitive science.
į:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this question by pursuing metaphysics as a cognitive science. I take our imagination's limitations as the pragmatic ground for absolute truth, document the perspectives available to us on particular issues, and develop testable models of cognitive frameworks for those issues.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 10:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 19-26 eilutės iš
Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.

Everything itself can be defined in terms
of its four properties:
* Everything has no external context - if you think it, then it includes you.
* Everything is the simplest algorithm, which accepts all things - and so it is the same for all of us.
* Everything has no internal structure - it may be orderly or chaotic - and so all statements about everything are true.
* Everything is a required concept - we couldn't have learned it, because all that we encounter is bounded, so we must have always had it.
į:
What neuroscientists call the global workspace, I believe we experience intuitively as the familiar concept of everything. We can define everything by noting its four remarkable properties:
Pakeista 23 eilutė iš:
* Everything is the simplest possible algorithm, the one which has no filter but accepts all things, whatever we think of. This means that we all have the same Everything, although we may call it by different names, such as Being (all that is), Love (all that is loved), etc.
į:
* Everything is the simplest possible algorithm, the one which has no filter but accepts all things, whatever we think of. This means that we all have the same Everything, although we may call it by different names, such as Being, Love, Meaning and so on.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:59 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 18-19 eilutės:
For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We document eight such cognitive frameworks as "divisions of everything" and show how the eighth division collapses into a "zeroth" division, yielding a closed cycle of frameworks. We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
Pridėtos 34-35 eilutės:
For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why.
Pakeistos 98-100 eilutės iš
We document a closed system of eight such conceptual frameworks which variously divide the global workspace. We suppose that our minds may operate on a map of such a system, just as we have body maps.
į:
We document a closed system of eight such conceptual frameworks which variously divide the global workspace. We suppose that our minds may operate on a map of such a system, just as we have body maps.

We document eight such cognitive frameworks as "divisions of everything" and show how the eighth division collapses into a "zeroth" division, yielding a closed cycle of frameworks. We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 13-25 eilutės iš
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.

Neurologically, we might say that we are considering how our global workspace might be divided among different awarenesses.

Graziano has noted how attention focuses a brain's resources, and
has described awareness as a model of attention which can be attributed to oneself or to others as well. A model of the world is thus enhanced or even replaced by a model of subjects and objects of attention. We propose that consciousness arises in an additional level of abstraction in terms of conceptual frameworks which model how the mind's global workspace is divided up amongst possible perspectives.

We thus propose that we experience life through conceptual frameworks by which we choose the strategy by which to direct our awareness. Our unconscious mind may offer us a script to execute an action, and yet our conscious mind may decide whether to reject that action or allow it to proceed.

Biological evolution has demonstrated a remarkable development of central nervous systems
that tend towards ever more abstract representations of the world. A paramecium may be said to engage the world directly through receptors for light, chemicals and so on. But more advanced creatures live in a world of signs. Indeed, we can observe a distinction among signs which the semiotician Peirce made in terms of icons, indexes and symbols. A butterfly may be thought to live in a world of flowers, that is, of icons and images, representations of what it senses, sees, smells and feels. It manages its mental resources by choosing to pay attention to particular icons. As Graziano has pointed out, a mouse's brain includes a model of attention, and so a mouse can add this information to the icon, and thus be aware. Indeed, a mouse can consider if a cat is aware of it or not. Thus a mouse lives most abstractly in a world of indexes, a web of causal relations, who is attending to what.

We describe an even more abstract world of consciousness which humans inhabit, but quite likely other great apes as well. Not only are humans aware, but they are able to control their awareness, that is, to turn it on or off. Human can choose to "step in" and immerse themselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. We describe cognitive frameworks that occupy the human mind.

Thus the human condition may center on consciously experiencing a tiny, abstract model of the world, in which we adjust parameters for our attitudes that have consequences for our unconscious actions upon indexes, icons and the world itself.
į:
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.

But humans and perhaps the great apes can moreover be conscious, that is, they can choose what they wish to be aware of. Birute Galdikas
has noted how orangutang males go off to live alone, as if they were Zen Buddhists, and how they can choose to ignore people or not. We humans can choose to "step in" and immerse ourselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. I will describe us as experiencing cognitive frameworks by which we divide up what neuroscientists call our global workspace into various perspectives they may take up for a particular issue, for example, contemplating "free will" and "fate". Indeed, I will describe our conscious life as shifting amongst eight such cognitive frameworks. They substitute our world with a highly constrained abstract model of options within which we adjust parameters that subsequently trigger the workings of our involuntary, unconscious mind.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise identify a cat's attention, and thus be aware of the cat, and in particular, whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.
į:
I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise model a cat's attention, and thus be aware of whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:30 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 12-13 eilutės:

I will make my approach more plausible for materialists by noting how the central nervous system evolves towards abstraction. A single-celled paramecium engages the world directly by way of its receptors for light and chemicals. But a butterfly lives in a world of flowers, that is, a neural representation of the world in terms of sensorial images which it pays attention to. As neuroscientist Graziano has noted, a mouse furthermore has awareness, in that it utilizes a model of attention which it can identify not only with its own attention, and thus be itself aware, but likewise identify a cat's attention, and thus be aware of the cat, and in particular, whether or not the cat is attending to the mouse. Thus the mouse lives an abstract world of indexical and causal relationships.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 7 eilutė iš:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this metaphysical question by documenting the limited options of the human imagination. I also wish to illustrate how, pragmatically, we can take our imagination's limitations as the ground for absolute truth, develop models of cognitive frameworks which can be variously tested, and pursue metaphysics as a cognitive science.
į:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this pragmatically by taking our imagination's limitations as the ground for absolute truth, developing models of cognitive frameworks which can be variously tested, and pursuing metaphysics as a cognitive science.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:12 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 9-11 eilutės iš
I present a model in which our minds construct time and space as representations of decision-making. Both time and space suppose five perspectives which define two directions for causality: "Every effect has had its cause" but also "Not every cause has had its effects".
į:
I present a model in which our minds construct time and space as representations of decision-making. Both time and space suppose five perspectives which define two directions for causality: "Every effect has had its cause" but also "Not every cause has had its effects". Time expresses causality dynamically from past to future. In time, the present is given by an ambiguity between the forwards direction of time, from cause to effect, and the backwards direction of time, from effect to cause. Space expresses causality statically as an outer system determining an inner subsystem. In space, the boundary disambiguates the outer cause and the inner effect.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 09:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 7-10 eilutės iš
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.

We can pursue metaphysics as a
cognitive science. We develop models - cognitive frameworks - for which we can assemble evidence and which we could test with experimental psychology.
į:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? I investigate this metaphysical question by documenting the limited options of the human imagination. I also wish to illustrate how, pragmatically, we can take our imagination's limitations as the ground for absolute truth, develop models of cognitive frameworks which can be variously tested, and pursue metaphysics as a cognitive science.

I present a model in
which our minds construct time and space as representations of decision-making. Both time and space suppose five perspectives which define two directions for causality: "Every effect has had its cause" but also "Not every cause has had its effects".
Pakeista 200 eilutė iš:
Knowledge of intuition can lead to knowledge of nature, just as with mathematics.
į:
Knowledge of intuition can lead to knowledge of nature, just as with mathematics. A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:13 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 121-127 eilutės:

Each of these representations of the nullsome triggers a representation of the division of everything into three perspectives. This threesome is for issues of participation, and defines a three-cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting, as with the scientific method. There are four representations of this threesome, yielding twelve circumstances, much like Kant's twelve categories, but based not on the logical form of a statement, but rather on the following "mind games":

* True yields Necessary, Actual, Possible. Consider content (a concept) and its expression (to a view). Then what may be true (unconcealable) is the content, in which case it is necessarily true, as with proof by contradiction. Or what may be true (unconcealable) is the expression, in which case it is Actually true, as when grounds yield consequences. Or what may be true (unconcealable) is the relation between the expression and the content, in which case it is Possibly true, as in the event of consistency.
* Direct yields Object, Process, Subject. A Subject's attention may be directed by something else (an Object) or directed by itself (a Process).
* Constant yields One, All, Many. If we search for constancy, then we may find One example. Otherwise, All is constantly unconstant. But also, what we select and what we judge must stay the same, and so that must be Multiply constant.
* Significant yields Being, Doing, Thinking. If Thinking is significant (unencompassable), then so is the thinker - so is Being. If Being is significant, then so is Doing. If Doing is significant, then so is Thinking.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:12 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 37-41 eilutės:
* Everything has no external context. If you put it in a box, then it includes the box. If you think it, it includes you.
* Everything has no internal structure. It can be chaotic or orderly. Thus, all statements are true about everything, for there is no structure to hold onto: Everything is hot, everything is cold, everything is good, everything is bad.
* Everything is the simplest possible algorithm, the one which has no filter but accepts all things, whatever we think of. This means that we all have the same Everything, although we may call it by different names, such as Being (all that is), Love (all that is loved), etc.
* Everything is a required concept. We all have it, and appeal to it, for example, when we take a stand, which we do with regard to everything. We could not have learned of Everything, because all that we know is bounded, but Everything is unbounded. We cannot rid ourselves of it as a concept. It must have always been with us.
Pridėtos 111-120 eilutės:

Our life is driven forward. I can take a stand and follow through and reflect. That has different representations. These are generated not by logical forms, as Kant believed, but something very similar - mind games. I gave one mind game. These come from those four levels of knowledge, and if you negate them.

* If there's no Why, you can't encompass something, well, if thinking can't be encompassed, then the person who is doing the thinking can't be encompassed. If thinking is significant, then being is significant; if being is significant, then doing is significant; if doing is significant, then thinking is significant. That's a kind of hamster circle.
* Another game would be constancy - let's search for constancy. Either one is constant or otherwise you never find one but then everything is constantly unconstant, so all is constant. But in order to play this game with constancy, every time I take an example and then I conclude, how do I know that it stays the same? It has to be multiply constant. So I've defined one, all and many.

This is cognition. I've talked about culture I'll talk about communication. These are mind games that we play. I'll just go quickly through them.

* If I direct my attention, then I can direct it at an object - that is something else; but then my attention can direct itself, that would be a process. But then I can choose, which is it, and that's a subject.
* Finally, if something is true, it means that it can't be hidden. Like a bottle can be hidden, but truth cannot. Truth is what is obvious, what you can't escape, what is in your face. What makes it obvious and what it is could be one and the same, in which case it is necessary. Or they could be different things, as when you have grounds and consequences, so that they are actually true. Or what could be obvious is the connection between the two, so that it is possibly true.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:10 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 19-24 eilutės:
Biological evolution has demonstrated a remarkable development of central nervous systems that tend towards ever more abstract representations of the world. A paramecium may be said to engage the world directly through receptors for light, chemicals and so on. But more advanced creatures live in a world of signs. Indeed, we can observe a distinction among signs which the semiotician Peirce made in terms of icons, indexes and symbols. A butterfly may be thought to live in a world of flowers, that is, of icons and images, representations of what it senses, sees, smells and feels. It manages its mental resources by choosing to pay attention to particular icons. As Graziano has pointed out, a mouse's brain includes a model of attention, and so a mouse can add this information to the icon, and thus be aware. Indeed, a mouse can consider if a cat is aware of it or not. Thus a mouse lives most abstractly in a world of indexes, a web of causal relations, who is attending to what.

We describe an even more abstract world of consciousness which humans inhabit, but quite likely other great apes as well. Not only are humans aware, but they are able to control their awareness, that is, to turn it on or off. Human can choose to "step in" and immerse themselves in a subjective experience, or to "step out" and consider objectively what is going on, what others are experiencing. We describe cognitive frameworks that occupy the human mind.

Thus the human condition may center on consciously experiencing a tiny, abstract model of the world, in which we adjust parameters for our attitudes that have consequences for our unconscious actions upon indexes, icons and the world itself.
Pridėtos 26-27 eilutės:

For example, matters of existence require two points of view: We need to be able to raise a question, does a chair exist or not? but also suppose an answer: If it exists, then it exists; if not, then not. Similarly, questions of participation require three points of view: a cycle of taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. Issues of knowledge require four points of view: whether, what, how and why. We document eight such cognitive frameworks as "divisions of everything" and show how the eighth division collapses into a "zeroth" division, yielding a closed cycle of frameworks. We then model human reflection, awareness and consciousness as adding one, two or three perspectives to each frameworks, thus shifting our minds from issue to issue.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 93-94 eilutės:
We document a closed system of eight such conceptual frameworks which variously divide the global workspace. We suppose that our minds may operate on a map of such a system, just as we have body maps.
Pridėtos 102-103 eilutės:

We describe consciousness as a shift that moves us from a conceptual framework to one that has three additional perspectives to model our attention, awareness and consciousness. Our consciousness is that by which we are able to turn our awareness off or on, so that we choose whether to step-out or step-in, accordingly.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:07 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 16-17 eilutės:

We thus propose that we experience life through conceptual frameworks by which we choose the strategy by which to direct our awareness. Our unconscious mind may offer us a script to execute an action, and yet our conscious mind may decide whether to reject that action or allow it to proceed.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:06 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 14-15 eilutės:

Graziano has noted how attention focuses a brain's resources, and has described awareness as a model of attention which can be attributed to oneself or to others as well. A model of the world is thus enhanced or even replaced by a model of subjects and objects of attention. We propose that consciousness arises in an additional level of abstraction in terms of conceptual frameworks which model how the mind's global workspace is divided up amongst possible perspectives.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:05 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 26-27 eilutės:

How can we define the most basic definitions in terms of which all other definitions might be defined? We argue that "divisions of everything" are a nonverbal language of mental activities which evoke sets of perspectives that define fundamental philosophical issues, including definition itself.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:05 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 26-33 eilutės:

We look for the most basic definitions by thinking most abstractly. If we remove all of the particulars of whatever we are thinking, then what is left? What is left are the relationships between the possible perspectives which we might take. We rely on the fact that our imagination is extremely limited, at least as regards abstract thinking.

For example, in thinking about existence, we need at least two points of view. On the one hand, we need to be able to consider the question of existence: Maybe a chair exists and maybe not. On the other hand, we need to be able to assert an answer: If it exists, then it exists, and if not, then not. In general, we have one point of view where opposites coexist, as in free will, and another point of view, as in fate, where all things are the same. We note that our mind easily slips from a perspective of free will into a perspective of fate, but not the other way around.

We have collected such frameworks. Curiously, there are very few of them. And so we can speak of divisions of everything into two or three or four perspectives. Many philosophers appeal to a three-cycle by which we take a stand, follow through and reflect, as with the scientific method. This is the framework which arises in contemplating issues of participation.

Our mind has four perspectives by which we consider issues of knowledge: Whether, What, How, Why. We experience a cup as a sensory image, What, but also as a mental blueprint, How. But we may also imagine Whether the cup is in a cupboard even when nobody sees it. And when we imagine Why there is a cup, then we suppose that we must know its relationships with absolutely everything.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 76-77 eilutės:

We have documented eight divisions of everything which may be thought of as the conceptual frameworks for basic philosophical issues: Nullsome for God, onesome for order, twosome for existence, threesome for participation, foursome for knowledge, fivesome for decision-making, sixsome for morality, and sevensome for a self-standing system.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 03:03 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 19-24 eilutės:
Everything itself can be defined in terms of its four properties:
* Everything has no external context - if you think it, then it includes you.
* Everything is the simplest algorithm, which accepts all things - and so it is the same for all of us.
* Everything has no internal structure - it may be orderly or chaotic - and so all statements about everything are true.
* Everything is a required concept - we couldn't have learned it, because all that we encounter is bounded, so we must have always had it.
Pridėtos 67-68 eilutės:
The sevensome is a logical square which includes a possibility "there exists what is and there exists what is not" which defines a divided perspective and thus the activity of division and, indeed, definition.
Pridėtos 71-72 eilutės:
An eightsome would include the possibility "all are and all are not", in which case the system is empty, and we have the Nullsome.
Pridėtos 74-75 eilutės:

At the heart of our minds is a closed, finite system by which we experience life as a cycle of eight divisions of everything.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:59 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 41-42 eilutės iš
We describe time and space as two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system). In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
į:
We describe time and space as two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
Pridėtos 45-52 eilutės:
Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system).

Knowing is about modeling.

But knowing (unconscious) takes place through not-knowing (conscious).

Expected cause and effect - desired cause and effect.
Pridėtos 55-56 eilutės:
Sixsome representations: internalization (knowing) - inner and outer perspectives (space) - immortalization of emotions and virtues (time). Note that immortalization is in terms of negation (emotions - beauty, intimacy, love are negations) thus not-knowing.
Pridėtos 59-60 eilutės:
Representations in terms of increasing slack (observer, time, emotion) are in terms of what are not there - and in terms of decreasing slack are in terms of what is there
Pridėtos 99-100 eilutės:
Time (not knowing) is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space (knowing) is experienced after expectation is determined.
Ištrintos 136-194 eilutės:

--------------------------

More results
* Distinction between one-time activities and recurring activities? And their ambiguity as the two options? (3+2=5?)
* In what sense is time sequential and space hierarchical?



Possible Answers

Time (not knowing) is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space (knowing) is experienced after expectation is determined.

Sixsome representations: internalization (knowing) - inner and outer perspectives (space) - immortalization of emotions and virtues (time). Note that immortalization is in terms of negation (emotions - beauty, intimacy, love are negations) thus not-knowing.

Nullsome - negation of levels of foursome - is about not-knowing. Onesome (everything) is about knowing. Knowing is a negation of the nullsome.

Knowing is about modeling.

But knowing (unconscious) takes place through not-knowing (conscious).

Representations express knowing - and circumstances express not knowing.

Expected cause and effect - verified cause and effect ?

Representations in terms of increasing slack (observer, time, emotion) are in terms of what are not there - and in terms of decreasing slack are in terms of what is there








[+Extra+]

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time - then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.

Macroscopic view - time: single past - many possible futures. Microscopic view - time flows in the opposite direction: multiple possibilities - multiple pasts - single future. Quantum lens that relates these two worlds. Single macroscopic world - multitude of microscopic worlds.

Planck constant - information and action. Information - space, action - time.

Questions
* How is the gap relevant in visualizations?
* How is the coherence of the representations of the threesome by way of the representations of the nullsome meaningful?
* What is the relationship between the four representations of the nullsome (not knowing X) and the four wishes (wishing for X)?
* How are differently structured concepts (events, hierarchy, network) interchanged and interrelated?










2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:54 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 131-144 eilutės iš
Questions
* What is the distinction between time and space?
* How do time and space come together into everything as 5+3=0? via expecatations?
* How does conceptualization occur in time and space? as 5+1=6?
* How is the gap relevant in visualizations?
* How is the coherence of the representations of the threesome by way of the representations of the nullsome meaningful?
* How does the present arise as 4+1=5?
* How is the fivesome relevant for decision making?
* What can be said about the direction of time?
* What can be said about entropy as well as open and closed systems?
* Why does space have three dimensions?
* What is the relationship between the four representations of the nullsome (not knowing X) and the four wishes (wishing for X)?
* How are differently structured concepts (events, hierarchy, network) interchanged and interrelated?
į:
Pridėtos 164-170 eilutės:

Questions
* How is the gap relevant in visualizations?
* How is the coherence of the representations of the threesome by way of the representations of the nullsome meaningful?
* What is the relationship between the four representations of the nullsome (not knowing X) and the four wishes (wishing for X)?
* How are differently structured concepts (events, hierarchy, network) interchanged and interrelated?
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 85-86 eilutės:
Space boundary is disambiguity - separates outside and inside, unknown and known. Time boundary is ambiguity - present.
Pakeistos 163-164 eilutės iš
Space boundary is disambiguity - separates outside and inside, unknown and known. Time boundary is ambiguity - present.
į:







[+Extra+]

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time - then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.

Macroscopic view - time: single past - many possible futures. Microscopic view - time flows in the opposite direction: multiple possibilities - multiple pasts - single future. Quantum lens that relates these two worlds. Single macroscopic world - multitude of microscopic worlds
.
Ištrintos 176-185 eilutės:





[+Extra+]

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time - then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.

Macroscopic view - time: single past - many possible futures. Microscopic view - time flows in the opposite direction: multiple possibilities - multiple pasts - single future. Quantum lens that relates these two worlds. SIngle macroscopic world - multitude of microscopic worlds.
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:50 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-2 eilutės:
Submitted for [[https://philevents.org/event/show/31942 | Space and Time: An Interdisciplinary Approach]], September 29-30, 2017.
Pridėtos 7-10 eilutės:
By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.

We can pursue metaphysics as a cognitive science. We develop models - cognitive frameworks - for which we can assemble evidence and which we could test with experimental psychology.
Pridėtos 13-14 eilutės:
Neurologically, we might say that we are considering how our global workspace might be divided among different awarenesses.
Pakeistos 17-18 eilutės iš
Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.
į:
Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.
Pridėtos 21-32 eilutės:
More generally, in exploring the imagination, we consider the ways that we can divide everything into perspectives, such as free will and fate. This yields conceptual frameworks which describe our state of mind when we grapple with various issues, for example:
* In considering existence, we need two points of view: we want to question whether or not something exists, but we also want to answer definitively.
* In considering participation, we need a cycle of three points of view, as with the scientific method: we take a stand, follow through, and reflect.
* In considering knowledge, we need four points of view: whether, what, how and why.

We rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
* Classic debates which recur throughout the history of philosophy.
* Different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.
* Basic frameworks serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks.
* Basic frameworks reappear in classifying the basic frameworks.
* We can introspectively explore the basic frameworks as complete sets of possibilities for our thinking.
Pridėtos 39-42 eilutės:
Trying to explain everything forces economy - result: decision making is most simple - same structure serves both space and time.

We describe time and space as two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system). In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.
Pridėtos 59-60 eilutės:
We further consider how our minds shift from one conceptual framework to another. In particular, we describe consciousness as the addition of three perspectives, so that, for example, when the mind is conscious of existence (which requires two perspectives), then it is engrossed in decision-making (which requires five perspectives).
Pridėtos 67-68 eilutės:
Action = Unit of Acting = Knowledge minus knowledge
Pridėtos 73-74 eilutės:
We relate this particular shift in frameworks to Kant's Transcendental Deduction and to Heidegger's discussion of modes-of-being.
Pridėtos 81-82 eilutės:
We discuss how time and space come together in a framework of expectations which grounds our emotional life.
Pridėtos 87-88 eilutės:
Given this conceptual framework for decision-making, we discuss why time and space are different, and in particular, offer an explanation why we experience time in one dimension and space in three dimensions. We also consider how individual minds construct compatible distinctions of systems and subsystems, and thus compatible understandings of time and space.
Pridėtos 120-123 eilutės:
Knowledge of intuition can lead to knowledge of nature, just as with mathematics.

--------------------------
Pakeistos 165-166 eilutės iš
Trying to explain everything forces economy - result: decision making is most simple - same structure serves both space and time.
į:




[+Extra+]

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time
- then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.
Pakeistos 175-203 eilutės iš
Action = Unit of Acting = Knowledge minus knowledge

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time - then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.

--------------------------

Submitted for [[https://philevents.org/event/show/31942 | Space and Time: An Interdisciplinary Approach]], September 29-30, 2017.

[+Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making+]

By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.

We describe time and space as two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system). In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.

More generally, in exploring the imagination, we consider the ways that we can divide everything into perspectives, such as free will and fate. Neurologically, we might say that we are considering how our global workspace might be divided among different awarenesses. This yields conceptual frameworks which describe our state of mind when we grapple with various issues, for example:
* In considering existence, we need two points of view: we want to question whether or not something exists, but we also want to answer definitively.
* In considering participation, we need a cycle of three points of view, as with the scientific method: we take a stand, follow through, and reflect.
* In considering knowledge, we need four points of view: whether, what, how and why.

We rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
* Classic debates which recur throughout the history of philosophy.
* Different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.
* Basic frameworks serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks.
* Basic frameworks reappear in classifying the basic frameworks.
* We can introspectively explore the basic frameworks as complete sets of possibilities for our thinking.

We further consider how our minds shift from one conceptual framework to another. In particular, we describe consciousness as the addition of three perspectives, so that, for example, when the mind is conscious of existence (which requires two perspectives), then it is engrossed in decision-making (which requires five perspectives). We relate this particular shift in frameworks to Kant's Transcendental Deduction and to Heidegger's discussion of modes-of-being.

Given this conceptual framework for decision-making, we discuss why time and space are different, and in particular, offer an explanation why we experience time in one dimension and space in three dimensions. We discuss how time and space come together in a framework of expectations which grounds our emotional life. We also consider how individual minds construct compatible distinctions of systems and subsystems, and thus compatible understandings of time and space.
į:








2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:41 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 51-52 eilutės:
Our mind shifts from same (time) to different (space). But also from free will (space - we set the boundary between our self and our world) and fate (time).
Pakeistos 55-59 eilutės iš
Main results:
* Time and space can be described in terms of the same structure: decision-making
.
* We experience time and space in terms of states that our mind jumps around.
* We experience the present
as that period in which a unit of knowledge gets defined.
* The present ambiguates whereas the boundary disambiguates.
į:
Time and Space are extremely similar.

The mind experiences Time and Space.
* not sequentially.
* in 5 different modes
.
* in 2 opposite directions.

Causality is expressed dynamically in Time as past and future, and statically in Space
as outside and inside.

We experience Time as the accumulation of knowledge
.

We experience the present as an atomic unit of knowledge.

In Time, the present makes ambiguous the known and the unknown.

In Space, the boundary disambiguate the known and the unknown.

We experience Time most viscerally backwards from effect to cause.

We experience Time theoretically forwards as sequences of atomic events.

Our mind is contemplating Decision-Making when it is conscious of contemplating Being.

Our mind reflects on Decision-Making by adding a conscience to observe the present.

When our mind is conscious of its contemplating Decision-Making, then it unites Time and Space and collapses the Known and Unknown by having No expectations and thus is contemplating God.

The present time makes compatible the forward and backward directions of time and this may explain why time is one-dimensional.

Spatial boundary disambiguates the supersystem and the subsystem and this may explain why space is three dimensional.

More results
Ištrinta 87 eilutė:
* 2+3=5 We experience time and space most intimately, continuously,directly as progressing backwards, through chains of causes. We construct them as advancing forward as chains of discrete events
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 9-10 eilutės:
Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.
Ištrinta 52 eilutė:
Ištrintos 60-84 eilutės:

* Summary: Cognitive of framework for decision making in terms of five perspectives - time and space.
* Summary: This framework is consciousness of existence: 2+3=5.
* Plausibility: Progressive Abstraction of Central Nervous System: Direct, Icon, Index, Symbol
* Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.
* Divisions of global workspace: Twosome, threesome, foursome.
* Representations of foursome:
* Evidence for these divisions.
* Fivesome.
* Sixsome
* Sevensome/eightsome
* 8-cycle of divisions.
* Representations of threesome
* 2+3=5
* 4+1=5
* 5+1=6 - creation of concepts
* Kant
* Heidegger
* Relation between space and time: 5+3=0 Ambiguity of not knowing and knowing; Disambiguity of not knowing and knowing.
* Main results

Ideas to include
* Open and closed systems - entropy.
*
*
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:29 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 15-71 eilutės iš
Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png
į:
Attach:TS-07.png

Attach:TS-08.png

Attach:TS-09.png

Attach:TS-10.png

Attach:TS-11.png

Attach:TS-12.png

Attach:TS-13.png

Attach:TS-14.png

Attach:TS-15.png

Attach:TS-16.png

Attach:TS-17.png

Attach:TS-18.png

Attach:TS-19.png

Attach:TS-20.png

Attach:TS-21.png

Attach:TS-22.png

Attach:TS-23.png

Attach:TS-24.png
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 02:28 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-71 eilutės iš
[+Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making+]
į:
[++Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making++]

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-02.png

Attach:TS-03.png

Attach:TS-04.png

Attach:TS-05.png

Attach:TS-06.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png

Attach:TS-01.png
2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 00:03 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrinta 26 eilutė:
* Relation between space and time: 5+3=0
Pridėta 29 eilutė:
* Relation between space and time: 5+3=0 Ambiguity of not knowing and knowing; Disambiguity of not knowing and knowing.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 15:36 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 50 eilutė:
* How are differently structured concepts (events, hierarchy, network) interchanged and interrelated?
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 15:35 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 9-10 eilutės iš
* 2+3=5 We experience time and space most intimately, continuously,directly as progressing backwards, through chains of causes. We construct them as advancing forward as chains of discrete events.
į:
* 2+3=5 We experience time and space most intimately, continuously,directly as progressing backwards, through chains of causes. We construct them as advancing forward as chains of discrete events
* In what sense is time sequential and space hierarchical?
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 15:34 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 9 eilutė:
* 2+3=5 We experience time and space most intimately, continuously,directly as progressing backwards, through chains of causes. We construct them as advancing forward as chains of discrete events.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 14:56 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 77-78 eilutės:

Coordination of individual constructive times and spaces - we construct our own time - then start to construct for the world - then need to coordinate with other individuals likewise about our understanding of the world - and our particular culture mediates that.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 14:38 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 8 eilutė iš:
* Distinction between one-time activities and recurring activities? (3+2=5?)
į:
* Distinction between one-time activities and recurring activities? And their ambiguity as the two options? (3+2=5?)
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 14:38 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 8 eilutė:
* Distinction between one-time activities and recurring activities? (3+2=5?)
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 12:15 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 74-75 eilutės:

Action = Unit of Acting = Knowledge minus knowledge
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 12:13 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 5-8 eilutės iš
* We experience time and space in terms of states that our mind juumps around.
*
į:
* We experience time and space in terms of states that our mind jumps around.
* We experience the present as that period in which a unit of knowledge gets defined.
* The present ambiguates whereas the boundary disambiguates.
Pridėta 28 eilutė:
* Main results
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 12:01 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 2-6 eilutės:

Main results:
* Time and space can be described in terms of the same structure: decision-making.
* We experience time and space in terms of states that our mind juumps around.
*
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 10:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 62-66 eilutės iš
Planck constant - information and action. Information - space, acion - time.
į:
Planck constant - information and action. Information - space, action - time.

Trying to explain everything forces economy - result: decision making is most simple - same structure serves both space and time.

Macroscopic view - time: single past - many possible futures. Microscopic view - time flows in the opposite direction: multiple possibilities - multiple pasts - single future. Quantum lens that relates these two worlds. SIngle macroscopic world - multitude of microscopic worlds
.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 10:15 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 62 eilutė iš:
Planck constant - information and action.
į:
Planck constant - information and action. Information - space, acion - time.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 10:11 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 61-62 eilutės:

Planck constant - information and action.
2017 rugsėjo 29 d., 10:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 59-60 eilutės:

Space boundary is disambiguity - separates outside and inside, unknown and known. Time boundary is ambiguity - present.
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 20:26 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 57-58 eilutės:

Representations in terms of increasing slack (observer, time, emotion) are in terms of what are not there - and in terms of decreasing slack are in terms of what is there
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 20:01 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrinta 19 eilutė:
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 20:00 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 18 eilutė iš:
* 5+1=6
į:
* 5+1=6 - creation of concepts
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 20:00 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 12-27 eilutės iš
į:
* Sixsome
* Sevensome/eightsome
* 8-cycle of divisions.
* Representations of threesome
* 2+3=5
* 4+1=5
* 5+1=6
* Relation between space and time: 5+3=0

* Kant
* Heidegger

Ideas to include
* Open and closed systems - entropy.
*
*
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 19:41 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 41-42 eilutės:

Expected cause and effect - verified cause and effect ?
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 17:49 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 26 eilutė:
* What is the relationship between the four representations of the nullsome (not knowing X) and the four wishes (wishing for X)?
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 17:46 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 15:16 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 29-39 eilutės iš
Time is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space is experienced after expectation is determined.
į:
Time (not knowing) is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space (knowing) is experienced after expectation is determined.

Sixsome representations: internalization (knowing) - inner and outer perspectives (space) - immortalization of emotions and virtues (time). Note that immortalization is in terms of negation (emotions - beauty, intimacy, love are negations) thus not-knowing.

Nullsome - negation of levels of foursome - is about not-knowing. Onesome (everything) is about knowing. Knowing is a negation of the nullsome.

Knowing is about modeling.

But knowing (unconscious) takes place through not-knowing (conscious).

Representations express knowing - and circumstances express not knowing
.
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:45 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 7 eilutė:
* Global workspace as everything: properties of everything.
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 7-10 eilutės iš
į:
* Divisions of global workspace: Twosome, threesome, foursome.
* Representations of foursome:
* Evidence for these divisions.
* Fivesome.
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:40 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
į:
[+Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making+]


* Summary: Cognitive of framework for decision making in terms of five perspectives - time and space.
* Summary: This framework is consciousness of existence: 2+3=5.
* Plausibility: Progressive Abstraction of Central Nervous System: Direct, Icon, Index, Symbol
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:28 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrinta 6 eilutė:
Pakeista 9 eilutė iš:
* How do time and space come together into everything as 5+3=0?
į:
* How do time and space come together into everything as 5+3=0? via expecatations?
Pridėtos 18-21 eilutės:

Possible Answers

Time is experienced prior to expectation being determined and space is experienced after expectation is determined.
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:22 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 5-18 eilutės:



Questions
* What is the distinction between time and space?
* How do time and space come together into everything as 5+3=0?
* How does conceptualization occur in time and space? as 5+1=6?
* How is the gap relevant in visualizations?
* How is the coherence of the representations of the threesome by way of the representations of the nullsome meaningful?
* How does the present arise as 4+1=5?
* How is the fivesome relevant for decision making?
* What can be said about the direction of time?
* What can be said about entropy as well as open and closed systems?
* Why does space have three dimensions?
2017 rugsėjo 28 d., 13:22 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-30 eilutės:





--------------------------

Submitted for [[https://philevents.org/event/show/31942 | Space and Time: An Interdisciplinary Approach]], September 29-30, 2017.

[+Time and Space as Representations of Decision-Making+]

By what conceptual framework do we experience time and space? A study of the human imagination may contribute to an understanding of time and space, as well as the challenges that we intrinsically face in trying to understand time and space.

We describe time and space as two different representations of a deeper conceptual framework which relates five perspectives necessary for decision-making. Decision-making has us relate a model (a closed system) to reality (an open system). In the model, "every effect has had its cause", and so our mind looks backward from short-term effects to short-term causes. But in reality, "not every cause has had its effects", and so our mind looks forward from long-range causes to long-range effects. These two directions are both available in the present (in time) or at the boundary (in space). In time, we imagine that causes precede effects, and in space, we imagine that causes are outside of a subsystem of effects.

More generally, in exploring the imagination, we consider the ways that we can divide everything into perspectives, such as free will and fate. Neurologically, we might say that we are considering how our global workspace might be divided among different awarenesses. This yields conceptual frameworks which describe our state of mind when we grapple with various issues, for example:
* In considering existence, we need two points of view: we want to question whether or not something exists, but we also want to answer definitively.
* In considering participation, we need a cycle of three points of view, as with the scientific method: we take a stand, follow through, and reflect.
* In considering knowledge, we need four points of view: whether, what, how and why.

We rely on the following types of evidence for such frameworks:
* Classic debates which recur throughout the history of philosophy.
* Different philosophers describe similar frameworks in their own terms.
* Basic frameworks serve as building blocks for more elaborate frameworks.
* Basic frameworks reappear in classifying the basic frameworks.
* We can introspectively explore the basic frameworks as complete sets of possibilities for our thinking.

We further consider how our minds shift from one conceptual framework to another. In particular, we describe consciousness as the addition of three perspectives, so that, for example, when the mind is conscious of existence (which requires two perspectives), then it is engrossed in decision-making (which requires five perspectives). We relate this particular shift in frameworks to Kant's Transcendental Deduction and to Heidegger's discussion of modes-of-being.

Given this conceptual framework for decision-making, we discuss why time and space are different, and in particular, offer an explanation why we experience time in one dimension and space in three dimensions. We discuss how time and space come together in a framework of expectations which grounds our emotional life. We also consider how individual minds construct compatible distinctions of systems and subsystems, and thus compatible understandings of time and space.

Naujausi pakeitimai


Introduction E9F5FC

Understandable FFFFFF

Questions FFFFC0

Notes EEEEEE

  • 维基百科
  • 影片
  • 科学期刊文章
  • 读物

Edit right bar

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2017 rugsėjo 30 d., 19:29
Tweet