What is a mind in concept?
On the 16th of May, 2010, I wrote in my notebook a definition I’m still impressed by. Now sharing with the world:
The brain1 as a mind2 is [in a way] like a conceptual3 active cloud4 of information5 [in application6 a database7 of some definition8]:
it (..)9 is: an architecture10 of contextual11 identificational12 and valuable13 referencing14 in a defined15 domain16 where meaning17 super seeds18 (and is superseded19 by) context20, analyses21, quality22 and quantity23 over the production24 over time25 where complexity26 is a multi-dimension27 on its own to reference back to (..)28.
it(..)s logic29 does not know30 up or down31, but only its gravity32. Nor does it know right/left31 or north/east/south/west31; it only knows home33 and where it goes34, by which it knows its complete35 reality36.
it(..) only knows all notions37 by referencing back to a neighbouring domain38, like: language39, reality-awareness40, experience41 and errors42 and learning43. The complexity [and paradox44] of it all45; it does not know where it [eventually] comes from46 and where it is born47… there is no beginning48 without referencing back to a capable49 enough50 domain51. In fact; this is reasonable51. And still a concept52 is a (non-53)paradoxical54 domain by reason55, or a set56 of references57.
— Sent fân Wyærda
Progress report (3)
“Life happened… with full impact. (and a bit of November).”
I’ve been working, frequently, but no longer full-throttle. Some delays. I’ve been re-evaluating the self imposed deadline – as stated in Progress report (2) – and it will even be bold to suppose first of February. But still going strong. Last month, I’ve added a few hours video captured with brainstorm-sessions and attempts of explaining in full detail the impact of my thoughts. As for now, I’m happy to be able to be clear in my expressions to friends and some interesties. They almost start to understand me! Most important of all: I’ve captured a pure overview of my insights and created a thoroughly detailed outline. Don’t forget the countless drafts and drawings (including ‘the’ mind-map)!
I’m in the process of zooming in and out again; in detail, but also in scope. Last week, or two, I’ve been working on my preface. Seen the topics I’d think to need to cover, results into a preface of about 16 pages (A4), maybe even more: a personal introduction into the topic; an attempt for academic quality (with dealing with 4 paradoxes and its flux); my targets; and a brief summary of the chapters of the first book, followed by a brief summary of each planned book following.
Well, my crazinessbrilliance is proud of the four paradoxes I am about to deal with, even before really starting dealing with my topic: Knowledge. Firstly I apply focus upon the (Russell) Catalogues-paradox practically applied on the Academic Quality Standard of References and Acknowledgement. Secondly: The Ignorance Paradox. Thirdly: Paradox of Approach. Fourthly: The Linguistic variance of the (internal/external) (subject/object) Bridging Problem[het Brugprobleem] and its Paradox of Uncorrespondingness[*] and Ambiguity. I need a better name/translation, especially in English, of that last paradox. My crazinessbrilliance doesn’t end here… I do also want to reach three goals. First and “easiest”: do independent research (myself). Secondly: add a new field of study. Third: add a new disciplinary perspective/approach.
But maybe even more interesting: I planned of writing an article entailing The Ignorance Paradox for the Philosophers Rally.
I hope to finish the preface soon; I’d love to put full attention in the following chapters as soon as possible. Impatiently, I want to be finished and then publicised.
What is Knowledge? (1/5 cont. Pamphlet)
What is Knowledge? Somewhere between Language and Logic, or as subset/superset of. It is of wondering about (..) ANYTHING. It is our innate fascination of the world, ourself and each other: EVERYTHING. It can’t be simply defined other then by itself: having knowledge. It is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association, the acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art or technique[Webster: Knowledge, 2a]. It is being aware of something in the range of one’s information or understanding[2b]. It is the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning[2c]. It is the fact or condition of having information or of being learned[2d]. It is the collection of all of itself. It is the sum of what is known: the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind[4a] and above all (the result of) a branch of learning[4b]. It is everything with informational value to assign to a particular field of interest; it is knowledge of a topic. Knowledge is the sum of information, the sum of interest, the sum of (perceived) truth and the sum of ALL knowledge.
Knowledge is carried by our imagination, our communication, our language, our expression. Knowledge is an internal reality (e.g.: in the human mind) and it does manifest (by-proxy) in the external reality. Knowledge is a state of mind, a state of rest/peace. Knowledge is a pace of action, movement, enlightenment, revelation. Knowledge is a tool for understanding. Knowledge is understanding the tool, which in this case is itself.
Knowledge is reflexive and reflective upon EVERYTHING and ITSELF. It roots in the most atomic, elementary and fundamental principals/concepts/perceptions. Knowledge is the basis of all other knowledge; it is order. Knowledge is the result of everything. Even-though/also, knowledge is the contradiction to other knowledge; it is paradoxical in nature, even chaotic, even as much it gives us order. Knowledge is the highest truth and the biggest lies. Knowledge is without meaning, as much it is with verdict and without. Only with wisdom becomes meaning knowledge, or by simply saying-so, or assuming it is. Knowledge is as defined as ‘left-open‘. Knowledge is omni-potential: In ITSELF, ALL and NOTHING.
Being without knowledge is being NON EXISTENT or UNAWARE. Being with contradicting knowledge — even-though ignoring it — is the state of flux called LIFE. All principals, dimensions and perspective are knowledge and form knowledge, but (we humans) has to populate ITSELF by reproduction and preservation.
Each theory — an understanding of the world, reality and/or our mind, or even our (own) knowledge — is a framework of knowledge, and by being so interacts and defines other knowledge. In knowledge there exist no (relative) ‘up or down’ or strict definition, not even by a fixed number of axes/dimensions. Its paradigm is defined by the possibility of (INFINITE) EVERYTHING divided by NOTHING. Each interaction is implied in a complex horizontal way; knowledge of this complex structure is a theory of itself… and blurs to sheer knowledge when out of focus.
Knowledge is the mist in our mind. It is the fog we try to uplift in the sunrise of our consciousness. It is the (abstract) miracle and magic of life, without the need to be concerned by the spells and kicking-realisations life offer us daily. Knowledge is our hope, our humanity, our (in-described) result of civilisation. Knowledge is US (even with the capital intent given to God).
Knowledge is US!
Progressreport (2)
Last month, since I posted Progressreport (1), I’ve mainly been working on the outline and do more research: reading texts of — and about — several philosophers. I did notice my main interest and alliance with German (Continental) philosophy, starting from Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) up to the influences which emigrated to the United States of America and the United Kingdom during and after WO-II. Its systematic rational view, its tone of voice, including the German-typical-tone of ‘authority’ and their main topics triggered my focus. I listed their names and the period they lived and wrote in, and included their (main) works. I’m planning to link those as much as possible with the topics in my outline, to build a solid foundation, or a simply starting point.
Looking at my outline — with its (approx.) 28 (sub-)topics and extended with a ‘dedication’, a ‘glossary of terms’, ‘references’, an overview of philosophy and other sciences, and an ‘appendix’ with some to-reference-to scribblings — I do realize I’ve to write at least two a week to make my self-imposed deadline of January the first. And while doing that try to keep track of all references, which — I can tell you now, already — is not going to happen as complete as you would wish for in an academic text. Well, I don’t really need to, but it would be nice. Now I’m just going to write which story — a philosophy — I would like to tell. And when I limit myself to write only (on average) 4 pages per (sub-)topic, with a minimum of two topics per week, I should be able to keep it pocket-size and succeed in my target of only/just 80 to 120 pages, resulting into the first draft before the new year. The rest of thoughts penned down for the other/successive eleven books following this introduction.
Law of Proofing Theories of Proof
\[
\{v,\vec{v}\}^n \overbrace{\vec{\pitchfork} \bigg\{ t \in \sum^{\infty}_{c \between n} {}^{f\leftrightsquigarrow \neg c}_{\circlearrowright \langle v\rangle \langle\vec{v}\,\rangle } \circledast^{\sigma_{n} \ldots \sigma^{n}}_{\delta \asymp \vec{t}} \bigg\} \Bumpeq\Rightarrow}^{\text{deducting proof}} \binom{\top}{\bot}
\]
Three months ago (begin of June 2011) I wrote some equations to play with. While thinking of several theories in the area of philosophy of science, like the the one of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. With my own interpretations and own constructs I made some statements to think about.
Later on, I will use this ‘law’ as part of my Introduction and Topography (book #1) and a resulting project called ‘Last Judgement‘ (book #4).
I publish these notations and remarks like an Open Notebook research document, under full Copyright protection: no (re-)publications and reproductions are allowed without notification and explicit permission of the author.
Continue reading →
Added Facebook intergration
Just look beneath: You can post comments with your Facebook account.
Progressreport (1)
Nine months ago I made myself a promise and as result I made the choice today. Well, I wrote my final version of the apology for the first part of my manuscript. The part where I summarize my own philosophy: Introduction and Topography (maximal 80 pages).
In nagedachtenis,
voor mijn peettante Nella († 6-12-2010):
“In de diepste gedachten kunnen we woorden spreken die ons (aller) BewustZijn overstijgen, welke gehoord worden over tijd en de dood heen.”© 2011 Sent fân Wyærda — dit werk
(fragment)is(expliciet)auteursrechtelijk beschermd
which results in a preliminary English translation to:
In memoriam,
to my godmother Nella († 2010-12-06):
“In the deepest thoughts we are able to speak words which transcend (all) our Consciousness, which can be heard through time and passed death.”
Please note its explicite copyright: © 2011 Sent fân Wyærda — protected under Dutch copyrightlaw (auteursrecht)
Tablet Survival Kit
Because of several different reasons I’ve got an iPad2. It is a fine and fun gadget. But it needs more. In my opinion you should not use one pure out-of-the-box, so I extended it with extras. I will list my accessories based upon protection, productivity and experience, of all I deemed necessarily.
Fuel to think… (1)
Yesterday (June 6th, 2011) I went to a shooting of Brandstof (“Fuel” in Dutch), a philosophical engaged program filmed by HUMAN (the dutch humanist public broadcasting company). I attended three recordings, each about Karl Popper, Immanuel Kant and Desiderius Erasmus. Although, by design, these episodes promise an extremely high ethical humanist expression, which does not really appeal to me personally (“I’m not a humanist”), but apparently it has interest for in this society of 2011. At least enough to make a television program about it. These will be broadcasted in September and October of 2011. Continue reading →
Dealing with misconceptions of orientation and construction
While looking at information, and data structures in particular, mainly the relations between [nodes of] information are (frequently) perceived incorrect. There are many types of relations forge-able between nodes/elements/objects/entities, mainly [horizontally] between “equally independent/unique nodes”. But the types of relations of orientation and construction are mostly [vertically] perceived between parent and child or owner and owned. And in this [vertical] way in defining relations misconceptions arise, all depending on the (ignored) questions:
- when is data [uniquely] individually identifiable? (virtual existence)
- when is data dependent to exist only as part of an (larger) entity? (part of an identifiable construction)
- when should parts of an entity be-seen-as/exists-as an [independent] entity? (conception and [virtual] existence of identity)
- what limitations are being forced within my database? and how to ascent in meaning above this limitations? and what will the limitations imply upon the meaning by constructing/recording in that particular manner of fashion?
- what meaning has my data? and how do I transcend my entities to (re-)capture this meaning?
While on its own it starts to become a deeply philosophical search for what identity (virtual existence), meaning and its implication of relations and limitations really is! It also should ask for the role of the by-human [manipulated] interpretation of [virtual] reality. All metaphysics and epistemology.
Mainly the vertical relation between information has to be separated by roles of perception by subject (orientation) and existence part of object (construction).
Continue reading →
