Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Dreaming in Colour
Wow, according to the blog post count from my two blogs the sum is 666. I may look at this particle stuff again and sort it out with details- or I may pursue my internet projects. But I do not want to stick around with all the name calling here to the extent I have. So, for my last intensive posting although I will be around to view and maybe if something is really new update the theories I choose a further commentary on Pinkers book in sections that from my reference frame of mind show the differences of say Kea's approach and TGD as having more alike than in conflict unwarranted. All are welcome in the new domains and its methods hopefully of better aids for communications.
Dreaming in Colour L. Edgar Otto May 31, 2011
Pinker goes on to say things I now see as relavant to some of our systems of theory at hand as they are probes as a new theoretical physics. He ties in his previous trends of thinking and concerns of his enquiries as lucid commentary on the philosophy of science. He peepers his work with references from the culture of his time - something that put me off in my last jumps of reading him- for example television shows. this was something I noticed in undergraduate writing, apparently as taught and mimicked by students of creative writing classes. These to me did not transcend the local culture but seem contrived to add it, as I was used to less shallow and more classical literature.
Yet apparently his books were best sellers and immensely popular, a style I should emulate if it weren't that in simpler words some of the deeper meanings are invisible or lost in the translation. Of course from the editors of such books every formula is said to put off many readers.
I would hope where I have looked at those invested in a theory and have pointed out similarities that such combining was not seen as detracting from their individual contributions, claims of priority of discovery, or tarnishing by association. As far as I can tell everyone mentions in this blog has approached the concerns in a way that Pinker calls the true spirit of scientific enquiry.
In such enquiry some of the new physics methods stand out as promising. Two in particular seem to me to work as a more mathematical approach to explanations. Which Pinker points our niether one is a good explanation. He, being more evolution minded and not above barbs at those with less scientific centered superstitions like the Creationists or Sociologists stances, or in general as this book is about reasoning how the mind works rather than what or why the mind is, a synthesis or practical merging of these poles of a view - from a biological and adaptive perspective his is an attempt or observation of a compromise as much as the search for unification without his explicit saying so.
He is keen to keep in mind other things like the development of language and how foragers are to be evaluated in earlier and even more demanding world views and mental effort than our more modern civilization/
The issue of categorizing things in the complexity of what nature multiply applies in her programs evolves unlike merely a programmed machine view. The averaging of views as a cost is justified by a mental or coordinating supervisor for projects like the perception of space and stage lightning. Or the detailed and thoughtful experiments by some individual like Land that had its benefits in careful details by its useful result an organism can organize perceptions with inference.
The other pole of this is that we limit things in the boxes because our brains cannot hold say, the powers of subsets of combination's - which Pinker questions even though mentioning that the numbers grow greater than the available electrons in the universe.
Both directions I have casually accepted as promising, after all these are at the heart of more philosophic archetypes of what mathematics is said to be- Platonic, intuitionist, formalist and so on at the foundations.
Of course, here one should make information part of the grounding theme or in the more Platonic view of which I do not see how a dynamic quantum theory substratum of issues of meaning or consciousness solely apply, nor that the context of either stance cannot be transcended. Alternatively, grounding in such a theory makes it such that it cannot be abandoned and the system as set up on these principles not crumble.
I do not regard it as good science merely to state from ones own system what of an others approach cannot be true for in most cases something is said outside the scope of that view or worse it descends to propaganda and low class name calling where some have fallen short of that theory retarding class membership. Wishing and disregard of objectivity and science as a social and international enterprise will not long make it stand true, although Pinker offers us the why some theoreticians are categorized and impeded in their choice of careers- rants, spams, to which in the relative autonomy and intimacy of the bloggers we all appear with shallow emotions and as we are not perfect over constant time, much in different approaches of combined machine like complexities applied to living things, we all have fallen short of civility.
This addiction to such enquiry or expectation of work or fame can trump other natural human relationships as say intimacy, child rearing, personal nutrition, teaching others and children and family support responsibilities.
Of course it has been a decade and a half or so since books and his books from that fresh and hopeful era. Predictions from bits and studies of neuroscience today seem to relate memory and memory retrieval and emotions involved to stress hormones. Yet just as light still seems detached from its grounding in explanations and processes, a hidden memory as dynamic now asserted, we can only fool ourselves by the comparison to reflections as if Pinker's example for a reference frame for photographs of 18% gray reflected back while the subject holds such a card.
In these considerations I have discussed a more binary and linear situation for coordinates abstractly of black and white. Pinker says with colour we multiply these consderations by three (presumably the red green and blue of the physics theory of colour mixing.) This I interpret as issues of Triality and only carefully do what the observation of Pinker suggests is something too general that one can see these threes everywhere and write volumes on it. After all, the number three is a number of a great deal of information and little meaning. Again, this is a matter of philosophy for what are the mathematical foundations.
But whence the colours, let alone the light, in our our dreams? Of course the ATP emits very weak light as a background. But why colour at all as if the traditional example raised in philosophy do we agree on red as red?
It is not enough, even in the design and logic of programming to represent the world in information structures of black and white (understand that grey groups if any are superfluous). But at the heart of such ensembles of zeros and ones we can colour code them for informative and more general systems. Yet, this added dimension of colour does not give results we expect in space and topology with our traditional and evolving mathematical methods and notations.
In fact, from this view there may be higher analogs to colour as colour is to black and white, and black and white is to nothing at all absolutely. This level, as with some idea of absolute on the macro level if scale ultimate matters, as any that may evoke a continua of hierarchies, should not assert something mystical is involved here like ESP as earlier imagined for the quantum theory then be left at that. But I have written about small parts of Pinker's books.
* * *
And a further comment to Ulla's last blog post:
From a natural selection view life by replicating appears to have reverse causation as an explanation that the best theory is natural selection so far. (well, according to Steven Pinker and Dawkins and Cloak among others a decade and a half ago.)
Most things in nature are asymmetric, it is the symmetry and some idea like gravity up and down or defining right angles that is the exception. Cognitive theories can only explain things so far. Light does not tell us the texture of that it is reflected from and if TGD like ideas expect vague ideas of heat as the generator and a negative entropy- it is not a deep enough theory by itself.
His advice to Kea should be taken himself for they have missed each others point and the reflected wisdom does not reach do a higher view which is real science in the neutral content.
As Kea said we need to know a little more about these ideas and the theory of colour as applies to such particles.
Why should not a particle closer to the foundations or beginnings not give trouble for predictions in the simplicity and thus remain vague- one cannot improve or apply the quantum theory with its vague ideas that do not really extend to the complexity of living systems in a concrete and objective manner. The left and right brain theory is way obsolete, and if you read friends of Kea you find at the base of things a lot more depth than the simple perpendicularity we all wish we could easily identify with say dark matter or antimatter.
* * *