I've saved the paper to read after my nap, Neil. Thanks. Scanning it made me realize how hooked I am on visual organization with header styles, bullet points and all the other nonsense. And how ridiculous I am for it. I'm also intrigued that the paper references Feynman who I love, mostly because he plays bongos and loves his orange juice: https://youtu.be/2Ks8gsK22PA <https://youtu.be/2Ks8gsK22PA>
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:11:15 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > I have an internal movie screen, though its presence is intermittent, > sometimes glorious and once traumatic. The way we process information has > multiple logics, including the way memory is not accurate in order to let > us put different jigsaw pictures together for multiple futures. The > universe itself may be doing something like this, with some having time > backwards. > > In a more simple way, imagination allows us to think things through, and > personally I try what seems a reverse of Molly's embodiment - that of the > embodiment of the human in machine. The idea is not to create androids, > but rather imagination that can take us past current limitations and > provide enhancement for human being. Imagination is one way to test in > virtual reality and not get one's fingers burned. There are accounts of how > experiencing a Van Gogh played a role in constructing the model of a > galaxy. I even see similarities between Molly's treatment of non-believers > and attempts to make the semantic web compatible in difference. > > Fascinated by kaleidoscopes as a kid. Fascinated later by how machines > could repeat simple equations at vast speed and produce patterns (fractals, > chaos) doing something so mundane, yet rather like all 7 billion of us > putting different number values into 2x = y at the same time and linking up > the pattern. Imagination has a lot to do with pattern spotting. If Molly > looks to spiritual awakening, I tend to look for cosmic code. Her methods > may be introspective, but what was more introspective than Socrates' claim > the knowledge was already in there and could be found through the right > questions? I look out, though suspect these distinctions lapse in good > sense, compassion and non-jealous integration. > > Tony turns some plumbing pipes and a mask into a static 'creature' that > 'moves' with perspective and focus. I let it ride in my mind - though I > could just hate him for his talent (I don't). I more the kind of chap who > would borrow any left over pipe to keep the washing machine running. > > Any looking out is always experienced in the internal-virtual. We think > the universe is beige. Space may be fluidic, elastic (more Hooke than > Newton), potentially catapult-like so we could evade the limitations of > space-time by standing still in moving space. Imaging outwards was a > William Blake theme - http://ttj.sagepub.com/content/25/4/495.full.pdf - > dramatic unveiling of the inter- action of varied human personalities, > with its gradual focusing of atten- tion upon the two major protagonists, > and with its brilliantly skillful dis- closure of a symbolism which leads > the imagination outwards in widening ... experiments in gender, both > socially and artistically, can remind us all of the constant bravery > necessary to force the universe of the imagination outwards. > > Albert Einstein suggested that the elusive, additional element needed for > high achievement in science is a "state of feeling" in the researcher, > which he called "akin to that of the religious worship per or of one who is > in love," arising not from a deliberate decision or program but from a > personal necessity. Others are more down to earth. With eloquent simplicity > P. W. Bridgman wrote, "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is > nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred." > But as good as they are, neither remark nor the occasional anecdotal > confession is much help for discovering what we are after. Peter Medawar > put it this way, though a bit harshly: "It is of no use looking to > scientific papers, for they not merely conceal but actively misrepresent > the reasoning that goes into the work they describe... .Only unstudied > evidence will do-and that means listening at the keyhole." > > Free paper here - > http://eppl604-autism-and-creativity.wmwikis.net/file/view/20013446.pdf/201762974/20013446.pdf > > Of course, imagining anyone will read so as to shake themselves from > non-participation is imaginary. The self-importance of the petty gossip > may be rather like a rabbit hole world. What we can imagine has already > been warped by what is so easy to soak up from the 'garbage in' system, > including not being able to get over oneself as the centre of the universe. > I was taught about the irrational and spasmodic nature of science from > books written in and before the 60's. Molly is closer to this than the > frauds pretending science is rational. > > On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 12:02:58 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >> >> The idea of embodied imagination (Jungian) introduces the notion that >> through dreams, imagination presents us with a complete reality that is >> different from our waking reality, not constrained by logic or rationality, >> and based more on our individual archetypal system of symbols. My latest >> thinking is that we carry this system into our waking conscious life, but >> are less aware of it because of the constraints our rationality imposes >> when awake. This system may be what calls us into a spiritual awakening to >> more fully integrate all levels of consciousness. >> >> Several years ago I was invited (all expenses paid) to the Lucidity >> Institute <http://lucidity.com/> in Hawaii for a month long study in >> dreaming and consciousness. There have been a few invitations I regret not >> feeling free enough to accept in my life and this is one, but my mother in >> law was in hospice in our home and those love ties reign. Even as a kid I >> paid attention to my dreams and it has been for me, a life long >> fascination. It has led me to understand that there are states of >> consciousness in both waking and sleeping that are the same peak states, >> just the movie on the screen has a different tone, like the difference >> between Brooks' Blazing Saddles and Polanski's McBeth. >> >> I think that imagination is the mechanism that puts the movie on screen >> in all circumstances. >> > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
