http://www.brainrules.net/wiring
Curt
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, glen ep ropella <g...@tempusdictum.com>
wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 09:14 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>> " what it was to be Dine' " could possibly be reduced to their genes,
>> their language and the artifacts they carried or knew how to make... but I
>> find it easier/better if I include the "stories they told".
>>
>
> Yes, compression is real, not ideological. The reason you feel it
> easier/better is because it helps you with the inverse map from phenomena
> to mechanism. You have to act on the mechanism. Compression helps you do
> that. But it doesn't mean that the ideology is shared. It means the
> compressed analog is shared. The analog is a stand-in for the ephemeral
> thing you recognize/register. Funny enough, because there are a bunch of
> animals almost identical to you standing about, they recognize/register
> that ephemeral thing in much the same way. Their analogs are very similar
> to your analogs because your body is very similar to theirs.
>
> When/if we find communicative life elsewhere (here or other planets),
> we'll be able to test the hypothesis completely. But we can do it in small
> bits right here and now. Do amputees "understand" the world in the same
> way non-amputees "understand" the world? Did Helen Keller think the same
> way sighted and hearing people think?
>
>
> On the other hand, these distinctions might just be illusions, held by
>> the delusional. But this argument begs the question of "who" or "what" is
>> delusional? An individual sentient creature such as a human being? A
>> group of sentients with a shared "ideology"?
>>
>
> The delusion is simply in assuming the analog _is_ its referent. It would
> be like wondering why real airplanes aren't made of balsa wood. This is
> why I tend to think tele-war (very remotely operated weapons like drones)
> will cause something like PTSD similar in devastation, but from the
> opposite circumstance, to the close-up witness of, participation in,
> violence. That sort of removal from your context can be very difficult, I
> suspect. You have no choice but to act as if the analog (controller) is
> the referent (weapon). And it is the same ... yet it's not, because of the
> very complicated machinery between the controller and the controlled,
> machinery invisible to the operator.
>
> What's doing the assuming? Your body, of course. The better the analog,
> the more your body is tricked into acting upon the idea as if it's the
> referent. Ideas are brain processes, analogs for real things to which they
> refer. E.g. mental manipulation of an image of a 3D object engages many of
> the same circuits as actual manipulation of the 3D object. The better the
> ideas, the easier it is to be tricked into thinking those analogs are
> ultimately accurate, so accurate that the idea is the real thing. The
> smarter you are, the more likely you are to be tricked ... which means I'm
> completely safe.
>
> --
> glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
