Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Pre-Alphanumeric Brain Structure and Bicameral Number Gender
Pre-Alphanumeric Brain Structure and Bicameral Number Gender L. Edgar Otto November 15, 2011
The Platonic view of numbers having gender as well the evenness and oddness goes way back before written language and its dawning cognition in those right and left areas of the brain. Some technology in pigments and paintings are such that from the ancient mind as speech and music developed leads to persistent symbols and their interpretation.
In the debate of personal robots to help , say, stroke victims- it seems to me the natural structure of space and the laws of the cosmos apply to the human brain intelligibly as does the n-dimensional n-symmetric bilateral body form. So too the recovery from brain injury (partially anyway) can be mirrored then reversed as do the computer chips to duplicate itself. Music across the hemispheres is now realized as good therapy. But if the neurobiology laws reflect the cosmos then would not these features of logic and number make for a system that may not take over the function of the I-Human element as some fear- that is we to even approach artificial intelligence as such should apply these quasic ideas which are present with us yet seem like a dream time long ago. This is not to say, in language or culture, nor in the change of language, one gender dominates where even in the genetics certain traits dominate. Gender is a subtle and primitive thing of which from a reductionist view and a forgotten view we now see for language as a waste of efficient design and a burden on memory.
From the raw physics standpoint- force is tension and compression. The builders of the pyramids had certain ratios near pi or phi which some define as just a measure of the stacking of squares of blocks in an architecture of compression. But this sort of thing, now very ancient where the diversion was so soon and fundamentally biased more to what we almost instinctively see as either science or mysticism, suggests it is merely stacking of the binary squares (or square roots) of quasic planes of intrinsic gender (vertical) asymmetry reflecting such old arithmetic and geometry and more and more the new physics. Gender is essential for the idea of generations of particles and of flavor mixing. If this is still not the general case of things then what it is remains still quite outside our abilities of cognition and perception.
I mention again, in my toothpick-spaghetti and marshmallow models of the various lattices and polyhedra in space- the marshmallows dried to keep the figure together but after three days of rain the humidity had the models slowly like a liquid collapse off my table. All but the largest and the smallest (that the tetrahedron). But the largest stood starkly all by itself- a model of the Great pyramid of Cheops. Certainly there is more in this observation-experiment than vague mystical claims- it has to do with counting and the idea of compression architecture
* * *
Are we having similar if not exact thoughts or in this climate of new physics are ideas sprouting like violets?
Where do the Kaons fit into the TGD idea of particles? I recall a declassified Lawrence lab report in 64 that raised parity issues.
My posts of today and yesterday were still a further stretch but in them I offer first principles perhaps a little deeper as philosophy than the physics.
But these principles I too relate to the structure and adaptability of our brains, neurobiology - as crude as that science stands today.
And why this issue may escape the specialists.
* * * *
In reply to Owen's and Ulla's comments on Pitkanen's blog a few posts back:
I really enjoyed your paper, a classic of that view of psychology and of modern, existential and pragmatic philosophy.
But it is far from a science of consciousness (much like those here addressing absurdly low class hallucinogenic chemicals).
Now the immune function is not a bad idea, so too the inversion of cortex leadership with age. Not all is programmed to meet the demands of an immune system- something is left for the unexpected.
Consciousness is much more complicated than hypercomplex numbers, Boolean lattices, Peirce's three-ness of logical syllogisms and so on- or even the idea of viruses of which the same sequence may be virulent or not- why? Anyway, my take on cognition is now on the blog- if I may add to this delightful mind fest.
Elan vital and all that
* * * *
I have long admired your blog for its perspectives scientific and philosophic, its ambiance.
Of course we know that a theory such as the string theory may be logically consistent yet untrue.
I see no harm in your position as to how to understand and view the world but I am surprised you styled yourself a layman. (as am I)
For me, now, all problems with singularity and so on, I simply do not necessarily divide such entities into points or strings but sometimes a good combination I call iota particles.
The new physics (and we can peer a little beyond that) looks to me more wonderful than many have dared to dream. Wide is the landscape but it can be something we understand simply.
* * * *
BTW from that site this is listed:
I am continually having to look up or compute these volumes via their recursive formula.
* * * * *