Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

No.  My bad Glen.  I guess I have buttons I didn't think I had ... Thanks
for the follow-up explanation. Much appreciated.

My objective, to be sure, was not seeking agreement, except on the general
concept of "being in the zone." It was they only way to be sure we could
start on the same page ... a meeting of the minds, as it were. Remember I
came late to the thread. I kept digging for a root, but the hole was just
getting deeper and deeper.  Then it seemed that someone was filling the
hole with me in it. 

Iconoclast, I am not.  Not smart enough. Maybe why I drag guys
like Csikszentmihalyi to the party. But, as I think Vladimyr was saying, I
could have been taking Csikszentmihalyi's idea further than even he
intended it to be taken ... to the level of a society as a whole.  Even in
wonder, it may have just been too far too early. But well intended, as it
has been, for me, a search for a plausible approach at *normalizing *a society
to where it stops presenting us all with one unsolved existential threat
after another. So it has been a personal mission to understand this.  A
hobby of sorts. In this thread, I started with and concluded that I didn't
think it was possible to do what I was suggesting. Still, sometimes we
learn about an issue by throwing hypothetical solutions at it from every
corner of thought. Knowing why something isn't or may not be possible is
still insight ... even though it may sound like nonsense. 

So what's next to try on this quest? Complexity science?   Certainly,
zeitgeists can be seen as emergent phenomena. Problem?  Is emergent
behavior even controllable?

Context switch: To understand bird evolution you are going to have to go
back pretty far.  There is strong evidence that they are first cousins to
the dinosaurs. Landscapes and climates (conditionals) have changed
drastically since the Mesozoic Era. But has bird song reflected this?  It
would be interesting to contemplate how the first birds sounded compared to
birds of our day.  We seem to know how many of them looked.  Could their
sound be detected in a way similar to the way linguist try to piece back
the evolution of human language, back to its origins? And I don't know how
they do this reliably.

Fractals being patterns that are repeated in patterns at all levels of
scale (and tempo) seem to suggest a building up of complexity from very
simple rules like with *cellular automata*. Bird songs have grammar--rules,
that need to be learned from generation to generation. Variations could
creep in just from the variations that occur in the parents, just like with
human genetics. Speciation (morphological differences) makes not only a new
bird but likely a new bird song from different vocal engines.  Bird songs
of all types *have *been crudely reproduced with cellular automata. I
dunno.  I am not really addressing the question which I think is how to
determine if bird song patterns are spatially correlated, but maybe it's a
start ... tip-toe .. tip-toe ...

[image: Inline image 1]

Cheers


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:29 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

> Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek
> out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.
>
> On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral
> manifestation. Yes?
>
> Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we
> allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking
> the illusion seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials
> surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that.
>
> > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense"
> [usually with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.
>
> Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean
> something more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use
> for it.  I can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that
> it makes no sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve
> like "to me" and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that
> overhead interferes with the actual content.  But please don't think my
> attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried
> to make use/sense of that content.  My colleagues constantly mention work
> like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract
> elements I can use, often to no avail.
>
> I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I
> have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on
> thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.
>
> > In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually
> make my point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference.
> Imprecision. But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try
> to) understand anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Nick Thompson]

Thank you, Vladimyr, 

 

As any member of the local congregation will tell you, I am a sucker for the 
plausible.  I am also interested in bringing new blood into our conversations 
and in guiding the conversations back toward complexity in order to bring back 
some of the old blood that has gone a-wandering.  Hence my attempt to introduce 
the question of birdsong and fractality.  

 

Here is an example of a bit of bird song.

 



 

Some bird song is temporally fractal: i.e., it is hiearchically organized and 
the principles of organization are repeated at different levels of 
organization.  Unfortunately, the song above … a mockingbird song … is NOT 
fractally organized, and it’s the only one I can find on my computer at the 
moment.  But you can see what it would be for a song to be so organized.   
Crows “ordinary” cawing is fractal in that it consistes of temporal units 
divided into temperal units;  both a caw, and a burst of caws, are temporal 
units.  Raven “drumming” is similar.  Cardinal singing is similary divided into 
temporal units of temporal units, but unfortunately, there is a morphological 
level between the “song” and the “note” in cardinal singing, (cardinals sing in 
runs) so it is not strictly speaking fractal,  if I understand the concept.  

 

To be a thousand percent honest, I have to confess that I don’t know what it 
would mean for bird song to be spacially fractal.  I am guilty, often, of 
throwing stuff out to friam just because I don’t have a clue, and hoping to be 
educatied.  But because of song learning, it is often observed that songs are 
more similar locally than at longer distances.  Where that could be conceived 
as spacially fractal in any sense, I don’t know. 

 

I THINK this is a case of Thompson having taken a flyer and getting shot down, 
and perhaps we should all just tip-toe away in respectful silence. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:51 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Nick,

Thank-you and let's talk about the birds in their complex landscape. Are they 
hatched with the neural equipment to sing... or do they discriminate their most 
ideal voices from the orchestra, only after learning their father's voice?

 

Do they mimic the Caruso's among themselves and regale these stars with more  
favorable advances

 

that leaves a large problem ... to sing in perfect mimicry  they would only 
confuse eachother and throw flowers at the wrong feet.

 

So as the birds can distinguish each other so we can distinguish opera stars. 
Does the Fractal component hide a unique cipher code?

Is it audibly detectable at great distance.

I am not much of a bird watcher anymore but can recall a few voices;  Ravens, 
Jays, Larks, Poor-wills/snipes? , Herons,Loons, ... That's a surprise I recall 
more than I thought at first. Not a very melodious group upon reflection, 
ah...If I close my eyes and concentrate they come alive again.

 

Only the crow  family in my experience tries to imitate other voices. Indeed I 
used to charm Ravens with my mimicry while working in the far north. I recall 
someone stating that Ravens could imitate the sound of a Honda Generator. But I 
can attest that they can change sounds as if they were speaking and the glass 
bell clang usually gets their attention. Crows do not like it so much since 
they fear Ravens. I suspect wolves understand some Raven calls. Just a northern 
perspective of mine.

 

I think the thread has merits and hope not to have caused anyone to spill a 
drink.

vib 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [  
mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson

Sent: February-25-17 12:56 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Speaking for the audience ... 

 

Or at least one member, thereof.   I have not understood a word any of you guys 
have said since I introduced the thread a week or so ago.  That's Ok.  That's 
great, in fact.  It's the nature of the FRIAM beast.  I love it when you 
experts go crazy on this list.

 

So long as you go NICE crazy.   If you are going to get grumpy, you can't do it 
on my thread.Ok? 

 

A point of this thread was to introduce  Alberto to FRIAM.  He should know we 
don't DO grumpy, here. (We really don't, A.)  No apologies necessary.   Just 
stop. 

 

As a fellow madman, I love you like brothers.  

 

Thanks, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University  

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

G! 
New day...

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:30 AM ┣glen┫  wrote:

> Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek
> out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.
>
> On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral
> manifestation. Yes?
>
> Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we
> allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking
> the illusion seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials
> surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that.
>
> > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense"
> [usually with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.
>
> Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean
> something more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use
> for it.  I can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that
> it makes no sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve
> like "to me" and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that
> overhead interferes with the actual content.  But please don't think my
> attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried
> to make use/sense of that content.  My colleagues constantly mention work
> like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract
> elements I can use, often to no avail.
>
> I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I
> have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on
> thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.
>
> > In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually
> make my point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference.
> Imprecision. But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try
> to) understand anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand
> anything you have said in as much as I have tried.  And I am not sure it is
> because of the imprecision of language, though. It is something else that
> leads you to just find disagreement.  As often said, it is much easier to
> sound smart by tearing something down than to constructively build on
> something. Maybe that applies here.  Not sure. Hope not.
>
> I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding
> my own lack of intelligence.  I'm a solid C student and am always
> outmatched by my friends and colleagues.  (That's from a lesson my dad
> taught me long ago.  If you want to improve your game, choose opponents
> that are better than you are.  So I make every attempt to hang out with
> people far smarter than I am.  That they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of
> their kindness.)
>
> But the point, here, is that you offered a solution to the problem I
> posed.  And I believe your solution to be inadequate.  So, I'm simply
> trying to point out that it is inadequate and why/how it is inadequate. ...
> namely that your concept of optimal or efficient embedding in an
> environment is too reliant on the vague concept of mind/thought.
>
> If birdsong retains its temporal fractality despite the bird being
> embedded in a non-fractal environment, then we should look elsewhere ...
> somewhere other than the birds' minds.  Vladimyr's argument posted last
> night may demonstrate that I'm wrong, though.  I don't know, yet.
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] IS: Rhetoric in scientific arguments WAS: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Glen, 

 

This sentence raises some issues that are profoundly interesting to me, because 
I am interested in both terseness and precision in scientific argument.  

 

.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve like "to me" and "in my 
opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that overhead interferes with the 
actual content.

 

This is an old issue for me and I have, and probably still am, on both sides of 
it.  From a Pragmatist’s point of view, social salve has nothing to do with it. 
 We are talking about two quite different propositions.  When you put the 
“salve” in, your claim is that this is how the world looks “from here, from 
now”, but you make no universal claim.  When you take the salve out, you are 
asserting that this is how the world will look from all points of view in the 
very long run.  If, without “salve”, you reply to this note saying, “Nick, this 
is bloody non-sense!”, you will be saying that “Our colleagues will agree, in 
the very long run, that what you have written is foolish.”  What is irksome 
about such an unsalved claim is not the personal assertion of disagreement – we 
all can handle that – but the implicit assertion of universal judgement of all 
rational “men” upon what we thought was our best possible thought.  As 
scientists, we usually try to speak for the ages, as well as for ourselves, 
unless we say otherwise.  Writing as for the ages is more efficient in the long 
run: either one qualifies one’s short term opinions with “salve”, or one has to 
gin up one’s long-term opinions with such words as, “No, this I really believe; 
 I am not kidding here;  this is the truth!”  So, what you represent as 
“politesse”, I would describe as a kind of precision about the nature of one’s 
claims.  

 

What I have just written I guess, I really believe … as a pragmatist.   (};-\)



N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 8:30 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek out 
areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.

 

On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

> The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral 
> manifestation. Yes?

 

Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we allow 
the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking the illusion 
seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials surrounding the "as 
if", I'm trying to avoid that.

 

> I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense" [usually 
> with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.

 

Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean something 
more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use for it.  I 
can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that it makes no 
sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve like "to me" 
and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that overhead interferes 
with the actual content.  But please don't think my attribution of "useless" 
and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried to make use/sense of that 
content.  My colleagues constantly mention work like that of Csikszentmihalyi 
and I've studied what I can to extract elements I can use, often to no avail.

 

I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I have 
too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on 
thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.

 

> In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually make my 
> point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference. Imprecision. 
> But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try to) understand 
> anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand anything you have 
> said in as much as I have tried.  And I am not sure it is because of the 
> imprecision of language, though. It is something else that leads you to just 
> find disagreement.  As often said, it is much easier to sound smart by 
> tearing something down than to constructively build on something. Maybe that 
> applies here.  Not sure. Hope not.

 

I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding my own 
lack of intelligence.  I'm a solid C student and am always outmatched by my 
friends and colleagues.  (That's from a lesson my dad taught me long ago.  If 
you want to improve your game, choose opponents that are better than you are.  
So I make every attempt to hang out with people far smarter than I am.  That 
they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of their 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[┣glen┫]

Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek out 
areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.

On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral 
> manifestation. Yes?

Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we allow 
the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking the illusion 
seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials surrounding the "as 
if", I'm trying to avoid that.

> I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense" [usually 
> with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.

Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean something 
more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use for it.  I 
can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that it makes no 
sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve like "to me" 
and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that overhead interferes 
with the actual content.  But please don't think my attribution of "useless" 
and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried to make use/sense of that 
content.  My colleagues constantly mention work like that of Csikszentmihalyi 
and I've studied what I can to extract elements I can use, often to no avail.

I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I have 
too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on 
thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.

> In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually make my 
> point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference. Imprecision. 
> But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try to) understand 
> anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand anything you have 
> said in as much as I have tried.  And I am not sure it is because of the 
> imprecision of language, though. It is something else that leads you to just 
> find disagreement.  As often said, it is much easier to sound smart by 
> tearing something down than to constructively build on something. Maybe that 
> applies here.  Not sure. Hope not.

I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding my own 
lack of intelligence.  I'm a solid C student and am always outmatched by my 
friends and colleagues.  (That's from a lesson my dad taught me long ago.  If 
you want to improve your game, choose opponents that are better than you are.  
So I make every attempt to hang out with people far smarter than I am.  That 
they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of their kindness.)

But the point, here, is that you offered a solution to the problem I posed.  
And I believe your solution to be inadequate.  So, I'm simply trying to point 
out that it is inadequate and why/how it is inadequate. ... namely that your 
concept of optimal or efficient embedding in an environment is too reliant on 
the vague concept of mind/thought.

If birdsong retains its temporal fractality despite the bird being embedded in 
a non-fractal environment, then we should look elsewhere ... somewhere other 
than the birds' minds.  Vladimyr's argument posted last night may demonstrate 
that I'm wrong, though.  I don't know, yet.

-- 
␦glen?


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Nick,
Thank-you and let's talk about the birds in their complex landscape. Are they 
hatched with the neural equipment to sing... or do they discriminate their most 
ideal voices from the orchestra, only after learning their father's voice?

Do they mimic the Caruso's among themselves and regale these stars with more  
favorable advances

that leaves a large problem ... to sing in perfect mimicry  they would only 
confuse eachother and throw flowers at the wrong feet.

So as the birds can distinguish each other so we can distinguish opera stars. 
Does the Fractal component hide a unique cipher code?
Is it audibly detectable at great distance.
I am not much of a bird watcher anymore but can recall a few voices;  Ravens, 
Jays, Larks, Poor-wills/snipes? , Herons,Loons, ... That's a surprise I recall 
more than I thought at first. Not a very melodious group upon reflection, 
ah...If I close my eyes and concentrate they come alive again.

Only the crow  family in my experience tries to imitate other voices. Indeed I 
used to charm Ravens with my mimicry while working in the far north. I recall 
someone stating that Ravens could imitate the sound of a Honda Generator. But I 
can attest that they can change sounds as if they were speaking and the glass 
bell clang usually gets their attention. Crows do not like it so much since 
they fear Ravens. I suspect wolves understand some Raven calls. Just a northern 
perspective of mine.

I think the thread has merits and hope not to have caused anyone to spill a 
drink.
vib 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: February-25-17 12:56 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Speaking for the audience ... 

Or at least one member, thereof.   I have not understood a word any of you guys 
have said since I introduced the thread a week or so ago.  That's Ok.  That's 
great, in fact.  It's the nature of the FRIAM beast.  I love it when you 
experts go crazy on this list.

So long as you go NICE crazy.   If you are going to get grumpy, you can't do it 
on my thread.Ok? 

A point of this thread was to introduce  Alberto to FRIAM.  He should know we 
don't DO grumpy, here. (We really don't, A.)  No apologies necessary.   Just 
stop. 

As a fellow madman, I love you like brothers.  

Thanks, 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 7:49 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Gentlemen and audience,

The tempest ( Glen) and the captain of a small vessel (Robert) lashed to the 
mast. Are not in any form of disagreement by their own admissions.
OK, from my vantage point in the cold inhospitable North Lands , I sense a 
salient exchange of cannon fire.

Let's look at events Robert Wall introduced a novel idea Flow affecting 
individuals.
Vladimyr suggested that the description of Flow might be extended to Society or 
Social Groups. And that multiple low dimensional view points could recover 
higher dimensional realities.

Glen strongly protests this assertion.
Robert got backhanded when Glen denied that  Flow could be extended from the 
original individual to a group of individuals. I don't think Robert knew it was 
coming. If I am asked to judge this I will accuse Vladimyr of Meddling give 
points to Glen and a yellow flag for bending the rules of discourse. The two 
remain at the same point score and Vladimyr was told to leave the arena or shut 
up and just watch.
So complying with the judges warning...

he goes into the recesses of the internet and presents a coup against one of 
Glen's points about low and high dimensionality. 
This was a past attempt to compile two or more complex ideas into his personal 
self study device having no external value until Glen's position was declared.
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkxz3QBcDOoGZ2Lop
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212460=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223=OneUp
both links to same site. It demonstrates Geometric Projection as a tool 
developed by early Renaissance Artists.


Next Vladimyr will demonstrate a complex system reduced to a lower dimension 
raising a point suggesting that complex ideas may be reduced to simple but 
dynamic neural structures and shared with other minds as memes.
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212236=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223=OneUp
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkTzqvvk6JnRRFJX2
again both links to same display.
Vladimyr is trying to demonstrate the imminent feasibility of mapping complex 
ideas from higher dimensions  into lower dimensions that