Monday, November 1, 2010
Mumblegrunt II (Qwa-si)
Mumblegrunt II L. Edgar Otto 11-01-10
The illustration above is a sketch of two syllables with different grid address notations to distinguish the order of each syllable. Each n-syllable is a quasic universe or pixel (plinthon) region in itself having depth and span and shadow structure. The distinguishing of syllable structure, its vowels and consonants has been suggested as a notation refinement in earlier posts.
Of course the resolution here of 64/256 is crude- we note where the symbols have the same addresses this does not detract from the uniqueness of reading- we note that even on this scale we can treat a written (and presumably and spoken symbol or notion) as if on a certain quason we write as we naturally do- including errors or mistakes of fixed writing. We have to center things but the center is not necessarily set as a standard, but this also reflects our various styles of alphabets and their combination and other refinements of calligraphy in the connotations. The individual address or coordinate we note does not have the problems of differences of ordering in the reading- its loops and what have you, as would the shifting of the generational (particle) coordinate permutations.
The Cambridge on line test I posted in the last blog I have thought a little more about as a linguistic tool. I am not sure it measures something like intelligence more than it measures somewhat the design and logic of the ground of our mental system, indeed questions afterward tell me it may measure the stamina of the moment.
But I find it a good tool because the various items for one to be tested on are geometric and really independent of any natural language. Perhaps it does cross cultural lines in some way, but ways that can be compared.
With such psychoanalytic test (and again I wonder at any program that suggest that psychoanalysis has been reduced totally to some physiology) I wonder at the true and hidden application of the data collected for us monkeys in the lab (they point out that the other primates can do some of these tasks rather better than we, but then the young chimp can walk sooner and some researchers say learn to speak sooner before the fall behind the humans). So the strength and significance of this sort of test which really is limited to the conditions of the moment (one can make less on such tests but not more, traditionally and it is a myth one cannot study for it).
From my quasic view I being aware of this test based on brain scans and language neutral puzzles I found a weakness- one of what assumptions we have for such tests which would say it an error to assume two planes intersect at a point, for example.
What this test measures (and suggests for measurement of other mind-brain phenomena such as autism) does not seem to be of our idea of intelligence- nor of multiple intelligence- nor of the state of mental development in and between species. It measures our core arrangement and interpretation of time and space, a thing that is at the core of our language including numbers and arises naturally in the engagement with our species and the environment. The test assumes many things about numbers and dimensions, some of which we have ill defined so far. In a sense then it measures the coherence of the brain and its units of inheritance provided the organism has learned to orient itself in relation to the world and has been taught a mechanism to do so- and into is physiology which in terms of intuition of space and calculation seem to be automatic as a subconscious idea of developing influences.
I suspect with a little training there will be needed a minimum time and understanding of how to proceed with such tests from a quasic view (those who cannot intuit this view would be in the probabilistic world at a disadvantage and where I have been outside, or anyone outside the standard views, I would be at a disadvantage.
Lately it is clear that on some level there can be too much coherence between the parts of the brain where the more successful are more diverse and even have intelligence in some areas as a non-savant sub-genius (if I can coin a phrase roughly opposite of the idiot savant). But how do we measure these n-philosophy viewpoints in a language efficiently intelligibly geometric and numeric with such a wide range of n-syllable structures where each syllable or combination is a universe?
I find it interesting that on this level of generalization there is a wider idea of what generations (particle-like) are in that once we have assigned symbols to a unit of speech or meaning we can generate a whole new but equally related body of symbols as if we had different Chinese letters but true to their functions and meaning. But these are not totally free in which to impose any arbitrary code for any goal of finding in the code a way to reach a desired meaning. We do not as a rule combine our symbols in ways much more complicated than that close to our existential evolving ground design of our language and its reasonable use of logic.
Does the design of such spaces have the ability then of emotions and intelligence? God must be more than a geometer or mathematician from this viewpoint and we seem to share in theory that attribute of creativity- our hearts and metaphors given a wide range or not to what some see as excess or some see as true but vague and limiting. If our inhibitions clear up mental conflict in psycho-dynamic theory does it do it in a way where we can regard the design of our mind/brains as greater than instinctive, intelligent, and intuitive in the forms we imagine them now to be?
Yet, if our inner workings are described so closely to the workings of the cosmos in general in the design of things, then why are we surprised if we project upon that design some sort of Being which could seem as intelligent as we are?
* * *
This evening I found another relevant link on new scientist to some of these issues:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19663-introspection-brain-networks-fully-formed-at-birth.html We know the fetus dreams REM, but to ask poetically, Of what does he dream?