As simple as this, look at anything through blue tinted specs, and you'll appear to see a blue-tinted world.
Now imagine if we've all been wondering around with blue-tinted specs, without actually realising ... how cool would it be to correct our world view, to take off the glasses.


Those cool blue tinted specs, usually give the illusion, of a *separate*
rrreality. ;)


Peace,

Nova

illusion rrreality and RRReality - 2 terms, fundamentally different meanings and yet so well hidden that language fails to differentiate between the two, and they're given just 1 name.
Maybe not so surprising though, when the Stabile idea of 'tyranny of language' is considered.

:-)

But why are we here? in a forum on ADD? yalkkking about reality.

Shifting back through this thread we discuss multiple threads of conscious awareness and the new structural form, metalevel form of rrreality ... the full house of metas ... the 'meta mind' within the title of this thread.

Multiple threads of conscious awareness leads to a heightened sense of awareness of the illusory nature of rrreality.
The 1,0 to spiral observations, ie repetitive patterns within nature are a re-iteration of all of this too.

ADD gives us the eyes to see the Emperor is naked.

And yes it can be an unpleasant sight.
And is possibly a chunk of the 'ADD as disorder' model, and I think the immediately previous occasion on which I heard this mentioned, was in one of Pias' threads ... the sentiment 'ignorance is bliss' pretty much covers it.

But, merely averting ones' eyes or considering one's self to be gifted (with a fancy pair of eyes) and patting oneself on the back, really doesn't cut it. There's a responsibility that crystallizes, in actual fact :-) absolutely concommitantly with the crystallization of the new form of mind.
As Tom and Kay have mentioned in this thread, the personal experiential perspective .... usually in one's thirties ... of the interconnectedness of reality.
I seem to remember Carla's 'Absobloominlutely' in response to Tom and Kay writing about this, a little further back in this thread.
I'm guessing 'search' will locate the post ... after all how many 'Absobloominlutely's can one site hold?

:-)

SB.

Hee hee !!

I've always spelled it with one 'r' anyways.
Considering it's 'mine', I can be as 'creative', as I choose to be with it. (0;

blue How could you, Nova?

tinted ;) -> that's a monocle

spectacles ... I'm sure you actually meant

;);) -> 'blue tinted spectacles' (or bicycle?)

SB.
---


Those cool blue tinted specs, usually give the illusion, of a *separate*
rrreality. ;)

Right.

I sometimes use slang words. (0;

Specs = glasses


Peace,

Nova

piaszw
honestly you amaze me...wow, romanian. (e complicat, nu, romana?)

as for German -I had once a book , something like Deurch ist nict schwer (lernen)...yeah, so they said....(no offence, you should be proud it is a beautifull , complicated language in a beautiful complicated country-I like Germany)...

SB_UK

nurture ... nurture ... nurture.
nature's clever kid.

I look at it more like nurture, nature's little sister...but each with it's own rrreality?

... I'm sure you actually meant

;);) -> 'blue tinted spectacles' (or bicycle?)




Quote:
Those cool blue tinted specs, usually give the illusion, of a *separate*
rrreality. ;)



Actually, my 'enigmatic ways' of communication, have been brought up my
entire life.
I've heard everything from 'evasive' to 'unresponsive', in describing the ways many have related to my means of communication, during my life.

It's just *me* being me like everyone else is doing.
There's no agenda, other than my trying to 'speak'..

This reply isn't directed at you, SB
I was just thinking about all of this in general.

N

So, what could have caused man to be capable of abstraction, of first drawing 2 apples and a banana on a cave wall, and smiling..Not to complexify this whole deal even more {big grin} but I am fascinated by what's coming out of the studies of "cognitive evolution'.. in particular, the parts that show that a number of animals share more of our processing capabilities than we use to grant.

Caught a Science channel piece the other night which pointed out that abstractions are not uniquely human either. For example parrots have been successfully taught to learn what "red" means and then, on command, pick out the red objects from a cluster of things.

This is not exactly the same as your representational symbols (drawing an apple on the wall) , but it is a qualitative correlation, communicated with a an abstraction (in this case a word) and then extrapolated from one (changing) set to another. At the very least, it is pattern matching. Small surprise once it is verified, especially in a bird who needs to be sharp-eyed, but it never ceases to amaze me how little we trust our own sense of what-is until some study confirms it.

As for what those elephants in Thailand are painting when they pick up a brush with their trunks, one really does have to wonder, no? (There's a lot to that story too, detailed here at this link (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/thailand.php).)

I'd like to extend this ( unequivocally :-) ) and state that the ADD-nonADD divide represents a fundamental change in wo/man towards a new form of wo/man with greater capacity for 'understanding reality' aka 'thought' aka 'understanding their context' aka 'morality/logicality' aka ...so much more... :-) How would you feel about reframing that to say something like "all meta minds represent a fundamental change, etc"? You can insert something else for 'meta' I am not picky (yet <g>) about the terms, more interested in converging (there is that word again!) if we can on a set of shared perceptions.

If you posit to me that systems thinkers, or multi-faceted minds that can apprehend several levels of analysis at the same time, just might represent the leading edge of a new brain "OS" that could be especially well adapted to the coming era where systems thinkers will thrive, I could go there with you, speciation event or not (that part is too highly speculative for me and does not chime as a hypothesis yet, even though I am not denying it). But, truth be told, I struggle when you (or Tom) speak as if these traits apply to all ADDers, bar none. That is just too monolithic for me, does not make space for all the ADD-variability we see in places like these, and assumes we all share one basic processing style which I truly doubt.

But if you wished to say.. most people who share (X style) will be seen as ADD compared to what we consider 'normal' today, I could nod along with you. What to call (X style) and what belongs on its trait list could be a fascinating dialog all its own (as per this thread). I just wish we'd stop calling it the "ADD mind" as if all ADDers shared one stripe.

Or if, conversely, you feel strongly that specific aspects of ADDishness are, in fact, universal among us, then let's have that conversation first {grin again}. If so, which aspects go on that list? I'd be hard put, myself, to find any trait or behavior that does not have some variability across our whole crowd, but if you see that differently, I'd love to hear more about it. Honestly.

>> The ADDer may be all that I describe, but the ADDer may also not be and maybe even be so much worse off than a nonADDer given just one failure. And it's all down to education; .. not education as in formal taught education (not at all) ... but moreso ... the form of general education which forms a foundation upon which we build to shape our models of reality.These ideas will associate with a fundamental change in the priorities of our species. :-) ...really... <<

I have few quibbles with these sentiments, except for the caveats above. I can even agree that the education parts sure apply pretty globally no matter what one's thinking style or stripe of ADD. However, I am more encouraged than it sounds you are, about a lot of this happening already (many routes to get educated now, much more space for multi-modal teaching and learning, more respect for the self- taught than there used to be, etc. etc.). It may be happening slowly, but it's happening.

[fast forward]

>> .. The ADD tree seeds germinate and Phil and Ted are lifted into the air. Bill and Jed are similarly, though sitting on nonADDer seeds, which grow much more slowly. As the trunks grow, Bill and Jed will be at an advantage for a until the canopies of the trees merge, and Phil and Ted meet much more quickly, up on the canopy of merged crowns, while Bill and Jed still need to climb down offa' the tree to converse. Now, the important final piece.., imagine that Phils's tree (on the left) grows off to the left, and Ted's (on the right), grows off to the right. Both speeding off in opposite directions, by the second growing further apart, much further than Bill and Jed ... until Phil and Ted can't even see one another ... <<

That is a great little parable for illustrating the "elasticity" of conceptualizing, and how "our" style (whatever we call X) is much more elastic than typical minds in our time. I can even add to your thesis by pointing out that it is this very 'elasticity' which will make us especially good at the complex reasoning and adaptation an increasingly complex world requires (even if we feel inept in some domains in the interim!).

In short, we (metas) are especially well-equipped to apprehend and cope with dynamic systems while the NT mind is still hoping to find it lives in a clockwork universe, and does its best to pretend it is so.


>> rrr relates to an individual's own internal model of reality.
RRR relates to true real reality. <<

I like this shorthand! It's a useful and apt distinction to make.

The mind's drive is to seek to superimpose rrr on RRR, such that they intermesh perfectly aka an 'understanding of reality' aka 'an understanding of our context' aka 'a tendency towards morality/logicality' aka ...so much more... :-)

Agreed!

>> A final point ... why do I keep talking about proton pumps?
And their relationship to ... Energy transduction in mitochondria? Neurotransmission and electrical crcuits? <<

I don't know, admitted She the Sometimes Concrete. Enlighten me? <g>

Energy transduction in mitochondria? Neurotransmission and electrical crcuits?

My impulsive statement=they are the same ..different sort of but the same system circular....system mode of transportation idea, method, thingy dingy and zingy but don't forget zanie!

moderator round and round!

With SB always think duelaity! One meaning above (obvious) the second more submerged(subtal)! Do not try to analyze the second it kind of comes in on it's own! PLay with it inside like drawing a picture connected to the Picture.....the same .....differnt sort of...same method, idea, thingy! Ya know?

I can look things up and figure out how to say this "properly" however it is 5:00am in Texas! I have to post my responses to earlier post...I have to work again more round and round see how many alzehierme's patients can sneak out the windows tomorrow sort of have to stay awake for that... they are confused but far from stupid! It is the stupid who decided to put alarms only on the doors, they didn't think of escaping through the windows funny the patients have no problem with that concept!

Yeah, I admit that I probably suffer from a case of "the grass is greener" syndrome in that respect.


Me too just been on too many different sides of fences to still believe that … in 1997 I did an ADDed twist on this particular saying that I found better able to relate…..

The greener the grass the more abundant the manure!


It is a bit of a double-edged sword and I often get caught up in the weaknesses of it all, rather than the strengths.


In my experience this tends to be a human condition, with the exception of those who are flat refusing to deal with issues by totally submersion in the river of denial!

I will focus on negatives naturally because the positives don’t grate on my nerves near as much. I try to look at all situations, traits, things in life as possessing positive, negatives and neutrals! I have found this method helps me maintains some resemblance of balance. I also feel it more closely reflects reality!

My dyslexia

Negative(-) I can’t spell worth a hoot, looking any thing up is a chore from Hades (until they came up with on-line dictionary / copy and paste). This post will probably take me twice as long at least than the non-dyslexic person! I was in the third grade and could not read out loud because I could not pronounce the words (still don’t although I can translate sort of)….can take awhile to determine which meaning is the right one. .some times I miss translate and come up with some well pretty funny stuff---

Positive(+) I can read other peoples dyslexic writing, also helps with folks who’s primary language is not English. I can misspell words backwards as easily as frontward, I can read upside down! I learned recently that I can read well beyond my “grade level” probably because I have to read in context so I can learn the meaning of words as I read them. I also tend to have multiple “views” naturally, I can find charts misfiled faster than any one else I know! The combination of positive some how makes me a natural in debates (a hobby)


Neutral ( ) I simply have dyslexia and will for the rest of my life. I have no choice in the matter except in my attitude towards it!



So you're a tech, eh? Just plain film,



Just plain film although I considered going to school for this…. Now that I live close enough to a tech school it is possible but must first pay back another student loan…drafting! I am a nurse who has learned a lot of other stuff, basic x-rays I learned from working in clinics. When I got a job with a podiatrist several years back he wanted some strange pictures of the human foot ..he would just tell me what he wanted to see and I made up the rest.. did pretty good. The doctor still remembers me by name no less.. apparently he misses my “talent”


Do you use a CR/digital system?


Most familiar with old fashion ..becoming the story of my life lately!

The important bit of all of this are that we are close to forming a sufficiently solid path which links the start to the end.


Circular which is also soooo ADD in more ways than one!


Circular, but for now, what's most important is that we see that we've a door into the mind, and Aldous Huxley is holding it open.


Hey I type the circular first!

'Al - dude' ... you so rock :-)

The Doors of Perception (1954) and its sequel Heaven and Hell (1956) deal with Huxley's experiences with


Okay biology knowledge my help fungus, plant seed, flowering, or animal mineral or energy particles,.......in the end what a trip!


ooo my money's run out.


Yea yet another circular 0!

In my case 0 cents! It is like 4:00am!

I am smart enough not to take my computers a part which I still need to do! Graphics would be nice some times!


ADD gives us the eyes to see the Emperor is naked.


Add some “H” and the fact may pop right out of mouth before ya know it! Then they will smack a label on ADHD unable to control impulses! (okay what ever)


just might represent the leading edge of a new brain "OS"


Right eye??? Sorry OS in medicine right eye! OD=left eye OU=both eyes…

I use both eyes myself! It helps if they are both open!


I just wish we'd stop calling it the "ADD mind" as if all ADDers shared one stripe.


We do ADD (label) think that is what brought us here. I do believe Stabiles model does calculate for the linier thinkers….as well but will let one of them explain it to you I am not to the explanation thing yet!

I believe they are discussing a certain type of ADD thinking pattern as being sort of a “sub-set” ..it is here on this thread some where, I remember reading it!


I think this is one that goes into the difference (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=266128&postcount=46)



Donald Knuth himself (the godfather of programming, or perhaps algorithms) once stated in an interview that he considered programmers to be divided into two classes, one of which he referred to as a ‘priest class’.

He believed only a small percentage of programmers are ever going to really understand what’s involved, perhaps only one in five or ten or even fewer. Our experience echoes his, only lacking the hard edge of his way of expressing it.

Computing is one giant logical expression of a (hopefully) well-defined gestalt intent. A small percentage of programmers see that logic uniformly reflected across all the levels in which it appears, from the most general requirements to the operations of individual gates and beyond.

But the majority of programmers see at most across a few levels; something about the nature of shifting to a different level’s particular form of logical expression seems foreign in a way that sets up a wall.

For this group familiarity with a particular programming language or development environment may become a prison. Making the change to a different programming context is referred to as a ‘paradigm shift’, and it can be a difficult transition.

A ‘paradigm’ is just a metamodel with the implied context removed. If the difference between C or C++ and Fortran seems obvious and trivial, you’re using metamodels rather than paradigms to construct your understanding of the logical gestalt.…..


I believe this would be part of it…the other post is when he talks about deciding which model of thinking one chooses............




Or if, conversely, you feel strongly that specific aspects of ADDishness are, in fact, universal among us, then let's have that conversation first {grin again}. If so, which aspects go on that list? I'd be hard put, myself, to find any trait or behavior that does not have some variability across our whole crowd, but if you see that differently, I'd love to hear more about it. Honestly.

SB or Stabile feel free to correct me if I am wrong.... (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=273997&postcount=103)



I am more encouraged than it sounds you are, about a lot of this happening already (many routes to get educated now, much more space for multi-modal teaching and learning, more respect for the self- taught than there used to be, etc. etc.). It may be happening slowly, but it's happening.


Noitcaude sah tahw ot od htiw siht gniht? Thgouht ti saw eht egaugnal! parc …..fi ouy nac daer siht uoy era esolc! Yeht lliw reven evieleb em! Soht si elpmis mrof tinac emoceb erom detlpimoc naht siht!

Bgas ctas evre hwree …….cnat’ ysa!

Can ya see why I go through spell check batteries like crazy did I mention I have two spell checkers?? Wonder why?


Isn’t that how it all started all those years ago on cave walls….. how many of the cave people of the recognized what they were actually viewing when they gazed upon the simple beginning of communication!


Sum lradey unerdsnad !

rrreality and RRReality - 2 terms, fundamentally different meanings and yet so well hidden that language fails to differentiate between the two, and they're given just 1 name.
Maybe not so surprising though, when the Stabile idea of 'tyranny of language' is considered.

energy, particles, wave lengths, 0,1,

The 1,0 to spiral observations, ie repetitive patterns within nature are a re-iteration of all of this too.


Yu Niu, famous female martial artist

Hey I like martial arts we can work out while throwing colored wet paper at the ceiling

I just couldn't control the impulse to not bunch them up, and throw them up onto the ceiling, when they got saturated.

Some thing about that splat!

Yea the same but different! All colored paper splats some on the ceiling some on the floor, when there was an opps!



Strange…..the language is the same but different…sort of….. it is the same but different…..in a way! It is more of an “energy reading” than a word, or sound! Well for me any way could be I have been up way to long and around many people climbing out windows!

Nite meadd823 / morning guys=most! have to say Afternoon s/b!

I was thought about this a bit last night and how I could explain it better to other people, "normals" and otherwise.

So I'm in law school right now, and the law has this whole obsession with causation, right? I think what I experience can be discussed in that context.

To most people, this sort of thing seems to be a pretty simple sort of ordeal. If I stab you and you die, then I caused you to die and should therfore be punished, right? At least that's what most people would think.

I don't see it that way, however. There are a million causes for any one incident. The act of the knife being invented, to begin with, is technically a "cause" of death in this case. Had the knife never been invented, you wouldn't have been stabbed. I can't help but think this. Technically, it's true.

Faced with this problem, the law developed two types of causes, "causes in fact" and "proximate causes." Causes in fact are broad ideas and are satisfied by the "but for" test. " But for the act of inventing the knife, you would still be alive, for example. I favor these, while normal people usually do not.

Normal people favor "proximate" or "legal" causes. Legal causes are the "closest event" in a chain of events which caused something to happen. My act of moving my hand with the knife toward your heart is the proximate cause of your death, for example.

While I understand what it means, "proximate cause" seems like a mere social convention we developed so we could hold individuals responsible for their behavior. In the same way, "innocent until proven guilty," is a mere social convention. We adopt that policy because we think it's worse to send an innocent person to prison than it is to not convict a guilty person, but this convention technically has nothing to do with the truth. We don't have enough evidence to determine whether or not life exists on other planets, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. We may not have enough evidence to prove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean that God does or does not exist. We simply don't have enough information!

Perhaps it's my own bias, but one of the most important hallmarks of my thought process, I think, is my inability to "filter out" garbage like distant causes with respect to causation. Proximate cause seems like more of a social convention than a truth.

Those cool blue tinted specs, usually give the illusion, of a *separate*
rrreality…
…and how cool is it that in order to get out and rrrealy make contact with others, we have to first go deeper in? Preferably driven by the desire to form an intimately converged web with a truly significant other…



As Tom and Kay have mentioned in this thread, the personal experiential perspective .... usually in one's thirties ... of the interconnectedness of reality…
Apropos to that, we just heard the first reference the other night to data indicating that humans are maturing much later, from sociological studies of changes in how long kids are hanging around the ol’ homestead.

To quote roughly, “It seems the new Sixteen is Twenty-three…”

…which isn’t the end, of course, but the beginning…

Not to complexify this whole deal even more {big grin} but I am fascinated by what's coming out of the studies of "cognitive evolution'.. in particular, the parts that show that a number of animals share more of our processing capabilities than we use to grant.

Caught a Science channel piece the other night which pointed out that abstractions are not uniquely human either. For example parrots have been successfully taught to learn what "red" means and then, on command, pick out the red objects from a cluster of things.

This is not exactly the same as your representational symbols (drawing an apple on the wall) , but it is a qualitative correlation, communicated with a an abstraction (in this case a word) and then extrapolated from one (changing) set to another. At the very least, it is pattern matching. Small surprise once it is verified, especially in a bird who needs to be sharp-eyed, but it never ceases to amaze me how little we trust our own sense of what-is until some study confirms it.

As for what those elephants in Thailand are painting when they pick up a brush with their trunks, one really does have to wonder, no? (There's a lot to that story too, detailed here at this link.)
You should check out Why Are Some Animals So Smart? by Carel Van Schaik. (Scientific American, April 2006 pp. 64 - 71)

Pinning down the ability of animals to apply abstraction only blurs our view of the definitive difference between H. Sapiens and the rest of the species we know about.

That‘s OK by us, ‘cause you literally can’t get there from here. Understanding what makes humans unique requires a different approach; all these studies will ever do is prove how we’re similar.

Van Schaik almost get to it; he misses by a whisker recognizing that the Orangutans in his study have an internal model of reality, but they don’t inhabit it. He gets the role of culture right, and the extent to which innovation is communicated by close social contact.

But he also proves convincingly that Orangutans still rely on random happenstance to innovate; the difference between us and them is we can learn by copying innovative new behaviors of others in the group that haven’t yet occurred in any physical reality.

That, of course, is possible because we actually inhabit our common internal model of reality, and those other members of the group whose behavior we observe and copy are just another element of that internal model.

We consider the descent into that internal reality the hallmark of the original speciation event, the primary emergent property that distinguished the first modern humans. Of course a lot more emerged as things got revved up a bit. But most of what we might point to over the last five thousand or so years is related to the next event, the one we’re busily emerging from as we speak. (Most cultural myth systems and religions refer to the original event in some interesting way; the Christian Bible covers it pretty well in Genesis.)

Van Schaik missed realizing he had demonstrated the difference between our intellect and that of the Orangutans. And he didn’t quite get the idea of the common model, but a lot of it is right there, too. Everybody’s getting into the act…

How would you feel about reframing that to say something like "all meta minds represent a fundamental change, etc"? You can insert something else for 'meta' I am not picky (yet <g>) about the terms, more interested in converging (there is that word again!) if we can (agree) on a set of shared perceptions.

If you posit to me that systems thinkers, or multi-faceted minds that can apprehend several levels of analysis at the same time, just might represent the leading edge of a new brain "OS" that could be especially well adapted to the coming era where systems thinkers will thrive, I could go there with you, speciation event or not (that part is too highly speculative for me and does not chime as a hypothesis yet, even though I am not denying it)...
It’s in the emergent properties. Don’t worry about it; it’s really a highly technical distinction, more useful for future historians than those immersed in the consequences.


…But, truth be told, I struggle when you (or Tom) speak as if these traits apply to all ADDers, bar none. That is just too monolithic for me, does not make space for all the ADD-variability we see in places like these, and assumes we all share one basic processing style which I truly doubt.
The basic difference is really extremely simple; it’s only whether (and how) one applies the more modern form of logical structure.

* * * * *

Let’s take a quick side trip and differentiate between logical structure and neural structure.

A neural structure is any organized group of neurons that perfumes a well-defined transform of inputs to outputs, or outputs on inputs if you’re a math whack.

A logical structure refers to the pattern of organization of the information represented in the organization of the neural structure, most significantly in terms of relationships.

There is a specific pattern of organization of any neural structure, dictated by the fundamental mechanisms by which neurons function. The pattern of organization of the logical structure of the information represented may be similar, but that’s not required.

* * * * *

The difference between the two forms of logical structure in use is subtle in itself. They start out from the same roots, related to the way that neurons model information. They encode relationships in the same way, too, but the modern structure incorporates additional relationships representing relative metalevel.

Ultimately that difference can result in a dramatically different structure. Where that structure plays a role in the brain determines the effect of that difference; we’re not constrained to only applying the new form to obvious stores of consciously accessible information, memories or our sense of what’s appropriate in a given situation and the like.

Note we don’t claim that ADDers and normals are different in their ability to apply the new structures. Our view is much more uniform than that; the primary distinction is whether one chooses to take advantage of that ability. The rest all follows from that.


But if you wished to say.. most people who share (X style) will be seen as ADD compared to what we consider 'normal' today, I could nod along with you…
Nod away… (grins…)


What to call (X style) and what belongs on its trait list could be a fascinating dialog all its own (as per this thread). I just wish we'd stop calling it the "ADD mind" as if all ADDers shared one stripe…
But in this regard, we do. The ramifications can be all over the map, but in terms of the difference in how awareness of relative metalevel affects our perception of reality, we’re most of us like peas in a pod.

It’s only the fact that reality isn’t (i.e., that we all inhabit a private internal model assumed to be common) that prevents us from easily recognizing how much alike we all are, and how different it is from the normal view.


Or if, conversely, you feel strongly that specific aspects of ADDishness are, in fact, universal among us, then let's have that conversation first {grin again}…
I think we are…


If so, which aspects go on that list? I'd be hard put, myself, to find any trait or behavior that does not have some variability across our whole crowd, but if you see that differently, I'd love to hear more about it. Honestly.
Just the one, the perception of relative metalevel, which inexorably leads to the use of the more modern logical structure (unless it’s exploited to prevent such use).

That perception depends on the ability to observe two objects or events at the same time, so I guess we should include the ability to multitask or multi thread, too. But we think of that as almost subsidiary, despite it’s role as the primary enabler of the differences we see.

To be clear, the path to all this is simple: we develop (or learn to exploit) the ability to have two or more simultaneous attention processes active at the same time in our conscious centers. Simply storing the information contained in thoise simultaneous observations in the same way it’s always been done will eventually give rise to the new logical form. Ultimately the gestalt organizational form arises, a complete metamodel web.


>> The ADDer may be all that I describe, but the ADDer may also not be and maybe even be so much worse off than a nonADDer given just one failure. And it's all down to education; .. not education as in formal taught education (not at all) ... but moreso ... the form of general education which forms a foundation upon which we build to shape our models of reality.These ideas will associate with a fundamental change in the priorities of our species. :-) ...really... <<

I have few quibbles with these sentiments, except for the caveats above. I can even agree that the education parts sure apply pretty globally no matter what one's thinking style or stripe of ADD. However, I am more encouraged than it sounds you are, about a lot of this happening already (many routes to get educated now, much more space for multi-modal teaching and learning, more respect for the self- taught than there used to be, etc. etc.). It may be happening slowly, but it's happening.
I think SB left some of the critical pieces unsaid, though, and if he did there’s good reason for it: we don’t generally recognize the role of the collection of impulses and drives Kay and I call the Social Impulse.

Because of that language is lacking, being based on common experience as it is, and we have to struggle to find ways to describe those effects. It was a monumental struggle for us to get to the point that we could give it a name. Since the effort was almost completely in areas that are invisible, in retrospect it doesn’t look like we did much at all, so we usually don’t mention how hard it was for us.

The changes you refer to are happening, in our view, but they don’t do much to address the effects of the Social Impulse. Regardless of your personal feelings in the matter, the reason there are foreign soldiers in Iraq is because of the action of the social impulse. It’s lack of understanding of the effects that led to the failure of various intelligence organizations to recognize the threat of an attack on American soil in the first place.

On a personal level there is little appreciation of how the effects of the Social Impulse generate an environment that gives rise to many of the symptoms associated with AD/HD. I think that’s where the real education has to begin, and we see little of it, as of yet…


[fast forward]

>> .. The ADD tree seeds germinate and Phil and Ted are lifted into the air. Bill and Jed are similarly, though sitting on nonADDer seeds, which grow much more slowly. As the trunks grow, Bill and Jed will be at an advantage for a until the canopies of the trees merge, and Phil and Ted meet much more quickly, up on the canopy of merged crowns, while Bill and Jed still need to climb down offa' the tree to converse. Now, the important final piece.., imagine that Phils's tree (on the left) grows off to the left, and Ted's (on the right), grows off to the right. Both speeding off in opposite directions, by the second growing further apart, much further than Bill and Jed ... until Phil and Ted can't even see one another ... <<

That is a great little parable for illustrating the "elasticity" of conceptualizing, and how "our" style (whatever we call X) is much more elastic than typical minds in our time. I can even add to your thesis by pointing out that it is this very 'elasticity' which will make us especially good at the complex reasoning and adaptation an increasingly complex world requires (even if we feel inept in some domains in the interim!).

In short, we (metas) are especially well-equipped to apprehend and cope with dynamic systems while the NT mind is still hoping to find it lives in a clockwork universe, and does its best to pretend it is so.
Yes, but that still misses the critical point: how did we get so good?

The real advance in our cognitive ability is as simple as the underlying cause: we can unambiguously model stuff that normals model poorly, or can’t model at all. The inclusion of relative metalevel allows models to occupy N dimensions. Where a normal model runs into problems with ambiguity, we can simply weave the ambiguous part into as many different dimensions as we need to definitively resolve the ambiguity.

Models that have problems with ambiguity fail to converge strongly, so they’re generally weaker, even in those areas not directly affected.

There are other advantages, too, that allow us to weave everything into one big gestalt. But this is the first and most significant.

How this leads to the experiences we’re trying to understand here is a bit more complex, and I suppose we’ll cover most of it as we go along. If there’s something specific that doesn’t seem to follow, please ask.


>> rrr relates to an individual's own internal model of reality.
RRR relates to true real reality. <<

I like this shorthand! It's a useful and apt distinction to make.
All you need to add is a constant reminder that whenever you think you’re looking at RRReality, you’re really looking at rrreality.

Then as soon as you get that down, you have to go back and redo it all over again. Reality isn’t, and all we’ll ever see (at least in this context) is rrreality. RRReality is only accessible by clever inference, in the interesting forms we prefer to think about it.

Another way to think about it is this: there are no patterns in RRReality. All patterns we observe in RRReality arise as a consequence of interpreting our sensory input stream in terms of rrreality. The patterns we see literally don’t exist, except as an artifact of our own existence and our perception of that experience.


The mind's drive is to seek to superimpose rrr on RRR, such that they intermesh perfectly aka an 'understanding of reality' aka 'an understanding of our context' aka 'a tendency towards morality/logicality' aka ...so much more... :-)

Agreed!

>> A final point ... why do I keep talking about proton pumps?
And their relationship to ... Energy transduction in mitochondria? Neurotransmission and electrical crcuits? <<

I don't know, admitted She the Sometimes Concrete. Enlighten me? <g>
Oh, jeeze, I should have looked further down the thread before replying. You asked for it this time…

I simply have dyslexia and will for the rest of my life…
In an important book published in the Sixties, Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert showed a nice little mathematical proof that the Perceptron model of neural function was fatally flawed. They went on to state more or less directly that research applying the Perceptron model was a waste of good money.

The defect was something they called the X-OR problem, which in its simplest form refers to the fact that a Perceptron model can’t distinguish between these two patterns of four cells arranged in a square:

…..XO………….OX….
…..OX………….XO….

(X-OR refers to the fact this is an exclusive-or function; the X’s and O’s have nothing to do with it. In the real world the patterns were made up of black and white squares.)

Fast forward a few years: James Albus looks hard at the cerebellum and sees a modified Perceptron model at work.

This may or may not have been the reason money for his research dried up. Noam Chomsky claimed in an email that wasn’t the case, but we heard it (indirectly) from Minsky himself, in a public statement: his keynote address at the first Neural Network Conference. Albus went off to the Bureau of Standards to have a nice little career doing something not quite directly related to his thesis work.

What does that have to do with your dyslexia? Simple: Minsky and Papert were correct, but that doesn’t mean the Perceptron model isn’t an accurate representation of neural function. Real live brains could have the defect, too, and as it turns out, they do.

It should be obvious from the patterns that the defect is related to distinguishing right from left, and many of the problems associated with dyslexia reflect a similar difficulty. We’ve seen many examples of this; one is in my freezer right now, ice trays manufactured by RubberMaid.

They nest, but you can’t get straight which way to put the top one to keep it from displacing the water in the bottom one. So RubberMaid put big plus and minus signs on opposite ends, and if we pay attention we only screw up about ten percent of the time.

Otherwise, we have to consciously apply some form of external reference, usually relying on a clue derived from our constant immersion in the bilateral symmetry that infects much of our reality. Right from left is hard for some of us, simply because they’re arbitrary. Usually, I use towards and away, as in the direction of curvature of the individual ice compartments.

From what we can see, it’s likely dyslexia isn’t a problem for many simply because most people build unconscious compensating mechanisms. Or maybe it’s more that we break those mechanisms by being aware of them; if we see someone doing something with no rational explanation, we don’t copy it automatically. (Aren’t we ADDers rascals, though?)

Except, of course, in the case of something new and arbitrary in its own right, like the ice trays. Everybody has a problem with them, ADDer and normal, dyslexic or not. So they put big plus and minus signs on the ends, and we don’t use ‘em…

Does that make us dyslexic, or just stubborn?

And the presence of the spirals, indicated by << and >> (earlier on in this thread) ie left and right-handed, D- and L- forms of carbohydrates, amino acids, mirror images (non-superimposable), and the inspiration for 'Stinky' and 'Thinky' way back in the 'three word thread' ( Sorry Carla ... couldn't let it lie :-) ) feeds in ... perhaps ... :-)
Together with the notion of rrreality OR RRReality, and perhaps also the exposure of rrreality as a structure with defined form, through this repeated pattern, which as T&K mention above, must be an artifact of our minds.

So, the convincing artifact that pretends to be RRR, and the evolution of the structure that supports mind, to the extent to which it is able to uncover itself and to reveal in brilliant 'technicolor' that, in fact, rrr has been masquerading as RRR ... all of this time.

What a joker 'rrr' is ... I hope he doesn't mimic his friend XXX, and get into acting ... please feel the irony of a play with XXX alongside rrr ... 'isn't it ironic?'
'yes, Al ... yes it rrreally is'.

SB.

So which is Left and which is Right?
There's no absolute answer to this question ... merely the observation that these two guys, that is, left and right ... are opposites.
And we're back to 0,1.

I mentioned these ideas to my wife's father and ADDer and former Director of one of the couple of National French Research Organizations (life science)... and I saw the ~-ping-~ ... which of course is French for 'gestalt' :-) ' mais oui, c'est "pingue" ' ... and he searched out a copy of a book from his library by the main French guy on mind (and friends) called John Pierre Changeux (former Professor at the Pasteur) ... "l'homme neuronal" ... written in '83, and said that this book was on the only subject that really mattered, he then explained his idea of mind, and where the book failed, and then his ideas on emergent theory (in genetics) and that he immediately saw the point of all of this.
The moral of the story is that the time is now ... "How soon is now?" :-)
'The Smiths' ...about '83 too :-)...

Later on, he whispered (and he is a lay priest), that these theories signify the end of the motivation for his pastime in retirement.
The actual statement involved the juxtaposition of death and deus.

SB.

So which is Left and which is Right?
There's no absolute answer to this question ... merely the observation that these two guys, that is, left and right ... are opposites.
And we're back to 0,1.
Absolutely. (grins…)

It’s important to note the appearance of the essential contradiction of being, long ago incorporated into most Oriental approaches: if the patterns are all internal, where do they come from? And why do we continue to believe they’re significant, to act as if they were, to base our lives on the idea?

You might say ‘yin-yang’; Bart Simpson says “Bite my a**!” It’s all the same to us.

(OK, he really said “Eat my shorts!” But did anyone not understand?)


I mentioned these ideas to my wife's father and ADDer and former Director of one of the couple of National French Research Organizations (life science)... and I saw the ~-ping-~ ... which of course is French for 'gestalt' :-) ' mais oui, c'est "pingue" ' ... and he searched out a copy of a book from his library by the main French guy on mind (and friends) called John Pierre Changeux (former Professor at the Pasteur) ... "l'homme neuronal" ... written in '83, and said that this book was on the only subject that really mattered, he then explained his idea of mind, and where the book failed, and then his ideas on emergent theory (in genetics) and that he immediately saw the point of all of this.
The moral of the story is that the time is now ... "How soon is now?" :-)
'The Smiths' ...about '83 too :-)...
And how cool is that? Jeeze…


Later on, he whispered (and he is a lay priest), that these theories signify the end of the motivation for his pastime in retirement.
The actual statement involved the juxtaposition of death and deus.

SB.
Ah, but which pastime? Not the lay priest?

There are answers to the questions; the patterns arise from logic, which in turn must be an internal piece of whatever is external to RRReality itself.

External to RRReality itself? Yup, where someone RRReally important would have to stand, in order to create such a place as this.

The patterns are related to meaning, and that is what RRReality is missing. But that doesn’t mean meaning itself is meaningless; because it arises from the gift of logic, we can only assume it reflects the state of that external view, which is therefore not meaningless after all.

That meaning may only come down to understanding the mechanisms by which RRReality comes to exist, but that fact is of no consequence. It’s an important enough question that the answer, as simple as it may be (0,1, remember?), literally means everything.

But what does it all mean? From our perspective, we can finally begin to straighten out what we know, what we don’t know, what we can know, and that which is not possible to know. And the golden apple is that we can know a little piece of what we shouldn’t be able to know, all because we possess that gift from outside RRReality, logic.

In effect, your father-in-law can finally be certain that there is a reason to be a lay priest (in his particular solution to the puzzle of being), and also that the territory it addresses is securely tucked away, exactly where it should be.

We’ve talked before about what this all means in terms of the future of belief systems. We’re certain that belief will survive just fine, in a form that is finally completely harmonious with everything that is.

We think that’s not such a bad thing, comfort-wise and otherwise.

“It seems the new Sixteen is Twenty-three…”
LOL and agreed! I have been musing on this same theme for years actually and often joke -- if they're likely to live until 120, why shouldn't it be?

We're seeing our standard timescales stretch and shift all over the place, actually. In many circles, even before the Boomers get there, 80 is the new 60 as well :)

To most people, this sort of thing seems to be a pretty simple sort of ordeal. If I stab you and you die, then I caused you to die and should therfore be punished, right? At least that's what most people would think.

I don't see it that way, however. There are a million causes for any one incident. The act of the knife being invented, to begin with, is technically a "cause" of death in this case. Had the knife never been invented, you wouldn't have been stabbed. I can't help but think this. Technically, it's true.

Faced with this problem, the law developed two types of causes, "causes in fact" and "proximate causes." Causes in fact are broad ideas and are satisfied by the "but for" test. " But for the act of inventing the knife, you would still be alive, for example. I favor these, while normal people usually do not.. .Bingo, right on and me too BV.

I'd love to wax on and muse on this further as it's a sub-plot that's been high on my mind of late, but my time here will be very spotty and disrupted the next several weeks while we prepare to (yuk) move (something all ADDers should do sparingly since it explodes every system and stashing routine you've ever developed <no grin>). But at least I wanted to nod and say 'right on' and I will come back and add some detail if I can later ;->

Ooh guys watch the religion thing we are getting a bit close to the ADDF guideline edge!....Some toes are inching over the line...hate to be a "buzz kill".......… got to do what I promised I would do no matter how much I enjoy the conversation nor can I allow my personal style / beliefs of my own to interfere with "fair play-moderation"---sorry got to be for real in rrreality (kind of part of my internal personal fair act thing)!

The act of the knife being invented, to begin with, is technically a "cause" of death in this case. Had the knife never been invented, you wouldn't have been stabbed

Actually if ya want to go way back there the primary cause of death is being born in the first place….oops sorry I get carried away some times!



This thread is kind of like coming into a break room at work and having a moment of Ahhhh that’s better. It is nice to see the exchange of thoughts and ideas instead of the intellectual competition thing….today it is especially nice!




Right from left is hard for some of us, simply because they’re arbitrary. Usually, I use towards and away, as in the direction of curvature of the individual ice compartments.

For some reason this sentence provided clarity…………..one of those "THAT'S IT!" moments………….. I have yet to hear any one say it this way but you are correct the right vs., left is arbitrary…..and confusing! They “change places” depending on the referential direction…I guess that is how it is said!!


So which is Left and which is Right?

Depends on which way one is facing does it not?

If I stand on my head North becomes South and East becomes West!



…..XO………….OX….
…..OX………….XO….


I immediately looked down as this thing seemed to point downward at first! If ya fold the thing in half the patterns are identical rrrealy!



So, the convincing artifact that pretends to be RRR, and the evolution of the structure that supports mind, to the extent to which it is able to uncover itself and to reveal in brilliant 'technicolor' that, in fact, rrr has been masquerading as RRR ... all of this time.

Which answers the question asked way back in what is now a closed thread (the brain cell one) of why the brain can’t study itself objectively! Sorry threads do kind of run together sort of like a statement in one often answers the questions in another! I think a lot of people even here compartmentalized the different threads or perhaps they simple do not remember…shrug……

all of it ...
all of it ... ...
the ENTIRE written tale of man ... ... ...

... from the dawn of literature
... we've been looking to precedent

the tale of metamind ...

... whilst evolution of all things
(and not just lil 'ole life)
... has been looking forwards

... can only look forwards
... blinkered :-)

the tale of metamind ...

... the signs were there
... but we chose not to try and understand

the tale of metamind ...

... so ...

it's time that we wrenched a few necks around
and they won't break
a few will be sore
but ~you see~
when they've seen why they're sore
they'll see that they've seen
the line which pulls us ever upwards
cut the anchor adrift dragging us down
the time at last
to soar
sore
~see~
... saw
sore
~no more~

i don't desire for ~sore,


I-I do not want to be sore,
in any sense of that word,
sometime ... what talking is that?
like i'm not in the present.

the game worth it...I-I DON'T KNOW!

my chips go here.
And I-I don't think, extra effort is all that necessary,,
know what I mean?

i can't escape salts! 100mg sodium in all food products!

ok,

back to hypertension (http://i%20don%27t%20desire%20for%20%7Esore,)

too much Sodium, or not enough of Sodium?

onto the hypertense causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renin#Clinical_implications)

do we produce Hg on our owns'?
it is not in what we consume,
or is it?! muahaha,
we convert it, i may understand is how it happens..

haha, hypotension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotension)
symptoms,
PROFOUND fatigue, holy !
stiff necks
severe upper back pain, oooouuuu!

it's time that we wrenched a few necks around
and they won't break
a few will be sore
but ~you see~
when they've seen why they're sore
they'll see that they've seen abstract relation, just to get ya' goin'

forgot what i need to say next,

well, the Red Hot Chili Peppers album, from i forgot,
name By the Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_The_Way).. the album is quite revealing of our situation.. in many ways.. in many, uhh.. it's wierd.

Canadian researchers believe that chilies could play a vital role in curing diabetes.!!!

this is significant, maybe
The name of this plant bears no relation to Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile), the country, which is named after the Quechua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua) chin ("cold"), tchili ("snow"), or chilli ("where the land ends"). Chile is one of the Spanish-speaking countries where chilis are known as ají, a word of Taíno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno) origin. i gotta find ur post, Sb, crap, err..

goin' back to the sun (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae)
qk

alkaloids
glycoalkaloids

->- ->- are bitter.

~noting~
Taste as a sense is on its way out ...

... and so - if we were to see an expansion in TAS (taste) receptors
- we should think exaptation and dreamily ponder other possible roles for these proteins.

hmmm...

acidoids + alkaloids ->- humanoids

hmmm...

I am a Dalek.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrasting modes of evolution between vertebrate sweet/umami receptor genes and bitter (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Text&DB=pubmed) receptor genes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, we report the identification of 20 putatively functional T1R
->sweet
genes and 167 T2R
->bitter
genes from the genome sequences of living things which are nice

... orthologous T1R sequences are relatively conserved in evolution -
in sharp contrast to orthologous T2R sequences which are more variable.

These evolutionary patterns suggest the relative constancy in the number and type of sweet and umami tastants encountered by various vertebrates or low binding specificities of T1Rs but a large variation in the number and type of bitter compounds detected by different species.
Thus, functional divergence and specialization of taste receptors generally occurred via adaptive evolution.One wonders though whether the authors pondered (dreamily)
- those other roles which evolution might have conferred on these TASmanian devils.

alkaloids
glycoalkaloids

->- ->- are bitter.

~noting~
Taste as a sense is on its way out ...well done. hehe.

my elder, my grandma always used to tell me I am sweet.

my grandpa (ur a good man!)
awkward hug*

awesome, the ladies think i'm sweet!

buy,
qk

... no such thing as a free particle Why do I keep talking about proton pumps? Water!!! acid[proton donor][H+] + base[alkali,alkaloid,glycoalkaloid][OH-] ->- salt + waterEvolution operates within constraint of context.

n=9 permitted - jammin' on a theme of that first emergent property.
That first emergent property is going to turn out to be 'mass', chemistry - atomic weight of H is 1.

The first acid base reaction generates water ...
H+ + OH- ->- water
~nearly~

H+ + OH- ->- water + ENERGY

->- And so the theme of n=1...9 is set.

It's all about the absence of free (uncharged) particles - and the presence of bound unfree particles -
H+ meets electron - lives happily ever after in our world ...

Earthlings.

:-)

What ensues then is progress towards generating better batteries (capable of obtaining energy from this process) - evolution towards being better batteries - more prosaically though - towards guys and gals with more desire to
keep on keepin' on
... life force burning strong - empowering its latest incarnation (ADDers) ... propelling us ever deeper down into the vortex of change.

Hence ->- T2r expansion - we need to get us some alkaloids to suck up the protons which're being flung out by an ETC (http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/redox.htm) ready to adopt a novel (better) (cytochrome) cationic core ...

haem iron ->- non-haem iron

Do you like oats, lentils and spinach?

...well...

{{{funny that}}}{{{that funny}}}

qk - sweet or chillin? Love the Y in quinine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine)Sc-rew it (buy one get one free) sweet and chillin' - you go girl - 4ever a girl to me2 dudine - 2girls together in a big 'ole virtual world ... ... ...

A-K-
Knowleged.

Blessed Be (0;

Sc-rew it (buy one get one free) sweet and chillin' - you go girl - 4ever a girl to me2 dudine - 2girls together in a big 'ole virtual world ... ... ...


Meta minded moderators should take chemical response control pills before strapping in for take off with this one or the posatronic brained cat will remove one of my nine lives.

:-)

wikiP on vitamin,napthoquinone,quinone.

vitamins
A
B1-12 give or take
C
D
E
K

K->-napthoquinone->-o- m- p- benzoquinone

ortho-
meta-
para-

Orthobenzoquinone is the oxidized form of catechol (1,2-dihydroxybenzene)

catechol
catechol
catechol

quinones are potent oxidizing agents

acid + base ->- salt + water

proton donor + proton acceptor

The oxidizing agent is reduced, the reducing agent is oxidized

OILRIG
Ox Is Loss
Re Is Gain

-<- Age 11 - from a good chem teacher with the rhythm and rhyme of reason.

WikiP Redox

HF http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/Redox_reaction.png/300px-Redox_reaction.png :-)

H+ OH- ->- H+ gains e- and OH- loses e-

Acid Base
H+ OH-
Base emergent reaction of our n=9
Red Ox (potential)
Recurrent energy generation for the humanudeys - harnessing the emergent reaction as above ->- towards our own evil ends

ha ha ha ha

/maniacal laughter

...ends


a+b->-(c) where c is smaller than a and b alone.
Energy is released - hallmark of emergence

Higgs Boso!

who you callin' a typo?

:-)

n(a + b - c) ->-powers->- us
... is evolution for biobods (us) ->-
whereby evolution is the generalized tendency towards maximizing n.

n(a + b - c) nis ngood n'est-ce pas?

non??? :-)

yay!!!

All of this sits below ->- catechol ->- psycho / neuro / endocrinology JigglyHogwashwaa-waa ->- is that pattern - serendipity ->-

... in a sense ...

hmmm ... ... ...

... in a sense ...

where's that qk signature about water never losing its credit or getting overdrawn at the local banking establishment?

heck ...

... know I put it somewhere.

:-)

~ADD~

... .r.o.c.k.s. ...

... the third rock from the Sun.

boing! boing! boing!

ooo totally x-cellent.o

(hu)C...........N......O
(hu)Si..........P.......S
(hu)Ge...As..Se

White Paper (http://www.sarahandrews.net/spatialthinking.htm)


Turning 90 degrees to everything else

The above summary was constructed—by our anonymous sage—in the hope of enlightening the average grade school teacher, who more often thinks sequentially than randomly, and is as often more interested in the process of learning than its results. He prefers nice, straight “yardsticks” by which to measure a student’s performance. He teaches linear subjects, such as reading, which is after all the job of decoding a sequential string of words, and he’s been taught that children who gaze out the window—when they aren’t wiggling—should be on drugs. He has twenty to thirty young charges to process each year, and wants them all to sit still, keep their minds on the blackboard, and throw him no curves. Just imagine what it does to his nerve endings when he is charged with educating a student who is hard-wired to question authority, who prefers accuracy but gets bored with precision, and who is clearly smart but does not seem to be “measuring up” to her potential. He lacks insight that this child is engaged in the stupendous task of gathering and sorting multi-dimensional observations. He is inclined to label such children. His list may include such self-esteem-crushing tags as “difficult,” “quirky,” “dreamer,” “marches to a different drummer,” or worse yet, “lazy.” If the kid has a sense of humor, she is, “a character.” The modern PC term is, “attention deficit disorder.”

***End Quote

Although written from a perspective that could be percieved as "the other side" it is obvious to me that SB you are not the only one who connects a specific thinking style to those who have ADD however I seem to think the ADD population as a whole may be a bit to broad as some are not so meta-minded as we have all expereinced.

Personally I would further narrow it to those who have ADD, {combined with high levels of "intelligence"} and a tendancy toward dyslexia. Sorry but I have found few who can relate to the multipple deminsioning appraoch that have not been labled dyslexic at least once in thier life time. I think the combination of ADD differences in stimulation filtering combined with the "alternitive" processing pathways provided by the dyslexia effects the thinking style more than either ADD or dyslexia alone.

I know you reference Stabile frequently, although Tom himself does not have dyslexia {that I know of} I do remember very clearly him sharing his wife Kay is dyslexic. Sense she is very much a part of his mental model this would not contridict any of his work. ONly a thought thrown out there to be tossed about in teh mind of any who take such a notion.

I know you are very chemical minded how these chemicals a processed or used makes all the difference in teh world.

well, dyslexia and hyperactivity run rampant on both sides,
of my family.. there are the lazy, the wierd, the hyper, the misfits, the never-ending chatter boxes. and a wierd thing between my aunty and my (her daughter) cousin, speaking their own language?!.. i don' know how that happened!?

haha, ya i do.. i do that with her brother.. haha.
'cept it's loud and over-exaggeratedly dull-witted.
the girl talk is very quiet and bird-like. lol.
(actually I'd imagine, that's what bug-speak sounds like.)
our guy nonsense is like the budweiser frogs.. the audience can make fun of us, or just watch, or go along (take the compassionate road) with the absurdity..

haha!

you know, people would try to use the point: 'You take a little bit from everything, and are in just this confusion. You're not even sure of yourself."

I will quote this next time, (Kiedis)
"my theory isn't perfect,
but it's cloowowowse. "

and it's never all that false in any areas..

ok, that's that

qinkin

dmt
6-5->-

dmt
-<-6

6-5-6

where

tryptophan
tyrosine

tellya'

couldn't make it up

couldn't make it up - not in a kzillion years

... :-) ... ... :-) ...

... :-) ... ... :-) ... ... :-) ...

... :-) ... ... :-) ...

~s,s,s,s,s,s - b

------------------------------------------------------------

Posts: 2,714

(9x3 == 27)
13d - final form ...
27,13 - and then +1 = a new beginning
2713 + 1
2714
2,714

Posts: 2,714

[ start ]
[ start ] ...a...new... ~beginning~ ... {tbc}

------------------------------------------------------------

Blessed (0;;-)wikiP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon) ->- Avalon is a legendary island somewhere in the British Isles, famous for its beautiful apples (http://www.orchard-grantchester.com/Grantchester_Group.html).
The concept of such an "Isle of the Blessed" has parallels in other Indo-European mythology ... ... ...

Much communication in a motion
Without conversation or a notion
... ... ... Avalon

Hades Ferryman at the Roxy for the premi\ere, guiding the guests to their seats.

~No smoking~

LOL !

His 'name' is Charon.
And for the price of a silver coin, he may or may not 'ferry'.

Never heard about the 'no smoking' rule.
I thought it was alcohol that was banned, LOL !

love the new pic nova hun...mm hope all is well is allways a joy to see you sb uk an so meany more finding so meany intreting things to chat an conva about our lives an minds

long may it contine

dormy

did you see the elicps the moon nova
????

Although written from a perspective that could be percieved as "the other side" it is obvious to me that SB you are not the only one who connects a specific thinking style to those who have ADD however I seem to think the ADD population as a whole may be a bit to broad as some are not so meta-minded as we have all expereinced.

Personally I would further narrow it to those who have ADD, {combined with high levels of "intelligence"} and a tendancy toward dyslexia. Sorry but I have found few who can relate to the multipple deminsioning appraoch that have not been labled dyslexic at least once in thier life time. I think the combination of ADD differences in stimulation filtering combined with the "alternitive" processing pathways provided by the dyslexia effects the thinking style more than either ADD or dyslexia alone.

Nice quote... I have to agree with your observation here. I don't see everyone with ADHD as having this thinking style, though I'm sure there are many that have it. I think intelligence plays a major role here, especially in the area of abstract reasoning, and perhaps the ADDer tendency to ... (or should I really write, dyslexic) to perceive things in unusual ways seemingly at random (I guess I see that as ADDish too... but dyslexia could be considered a spectrum). I know of some ADDers who aren't majorly meta-minded... low capacity to detect and utilize patterns.

I do wonder though if there is a correlation, would it be because those with meta-minds have less reliance on the attentional mechanisms in the first place, leading to better life outcomes for those afflicted?

Let's face it... most of the people of the world are reliant on (addicted) to their ability to pay attention. It's pretty much an assumed ability. No one ever thinks... "Ok... our employees need training. We will send them to this 12 hour class tomorrow. But how long will they be able to attend to the course?" or "I have to call this client back, but what if he can't sustain the phone call? I'll just email him... much easier that way." or "Here's a written procedure on how to submit your request... please read it carefully (I guess we should have made it more intuitive)." No one seems to mind this way of operation -- it is natural to them... they wouldn't give a second thought as to not "following the directions". They have little need to "guess". They are very good beneficiaries of being spoon fed every packet of information needed to live life. Those that reject the spoon spoil the little party that those in authority have... over having less control... over having to accommodate other special cases, because their thinking is often not n-dimensional, but very narrowly defined, and differences are frustrating.

Hey HF I thought my idea had well slid on by without notice, thank you for noticing.

I include dyslexia because our brains do work differnt and I connect itto meta-minds because at first it was intuitive and as per normal for me inuitive knowledge is easy to locate via seach. PLease refer to the following as to following along with my idea of dyslexiac meta-minded idea. I am referring not to all dyslexic but to thoise of us who have learned to read in a functional manner.

Newest Studies Show why Dyslexics Must Use Unique Strategies for Reading, (http://www.positivedyslexia.com/reading/article_brain_science.htm)

Thus the evidence shows that, not only does the dyslexic brain function differently, but that it must function differently if the dyslexic is to acquire good literacy skills. Actually, there is both a disadvantage and an advantage to the functional difference in the dyslexic brain. The disadvantage as that the system used by non-dyslexics is quicker and more automatic, and also can be acquired at an earlier age; most non-dyslexic children can learn to read well at about age 6, when their mid-brain system for listening to and understanding language is already well-developed.

In contrast, the dyslexic brain system is primarily reliant on frontal areas related to analytic thought processes that develop later in a child's life, and dyslexics who become capable readers and writers often do not acquire literacy until around the ages of 10-12, when their brain development has reached what Piaget called the stage of formal operations. The advantage for the dyslexic reader lies in the fact that, in relying more on intellect than on listening skills, the dyslexic has built a foundation for a deeper understanding of what is read and stronger abilities to analyse complex ideas and resolve ambiguities. Thus, while the dyslexic reading system is inefficient for the simple concepts typically presented in primary level readers and day-to-day reading tasks, it is primed for the complexity encountered as reading demands increase at the high school and college level. For this reason, dyslexics often follow the pattern of being "late bloomers" who struggle during early years, but often excel and are far better than their peers at integrating new knowledge at the high school and college level.

Unfortunately, because of misconceptions about reading and dyslexia, our educational system is geared primarily toward trying to teach dyslexic children to learn to read by exercising the subsidiary reading skills used by their non-dyslexic counterparts. Emphasis is placed on developing phonemic awareness and practicing reading through phonics, and on drill and repetition to memorize basic sight words. These strategies not only fail to help the dyslexic learner, but in the long run they may undermine the process of development of the frontal brain regions so desperately needed for reading, both because they reinforce neural pathways that are ineffective for the dyslexic reader, and often children receiving such instruction are simultaneously denied exposure to the enriched educational environment that would promote advanced intellectual development.

This dyslexic difference can be explained by the model of picture-thinking vs. word-thinking. That is, the dyslexic thinks mostly with visual imagery, whereas the typical, non-dyslexic learner thinks mostly with the sounds of words. Brain scan research does also show that individuals tend to prefer either primary language-based problem solving approaches or visualization-based approaches; that these are reflected in different brain use patterns; and that individuals tend to reinforce their favoured modality through their thinking and learning processes, building stronger neural pathways and gaining proficiency.

Because these differences appear to be persistent through life and tied to neurological causes, educators must recognize that dyslexic children will learn to read through different strategies and follow a different timetable for acquisition of strong literacy skills than non-dyslexic learners***End Quote

from same source as above (http://www.positivedyslexia.com/reading/article_brain_science.htm) and a part of interest all unto itself, another post just as well due to this

This system is not effective for dyslexic readers; brain scans show that those dyslexics who follow this mental route for reading remain persistently poor readers through adulthood. For the dyslexic who acquires good literacy skills, the brain does not process the word in the visual cortex, but rather uses the speech production areas of the brain in combination with analytical thought systems. The left-brain systems are associated with logical though and analysis, whereas the right-brain systems are associated with resolving ambiguities and intuitive thought. So for the literate dyslexic, reading is a process of moving from visual perception to conceptual thought.

. . . . . .continued on in same article. . . . .


In contrast, dyslexic readers who become capable readers do most of the work of reading in their frontal lobes, relying on a more extensive use of left frontal systems, including Broca's Area, and on corresponding right brain systems. Visual cortex activity is substantially reduced, as dyslexics do not invoke the VWFA system, and the Wernicke's area is bypassed. In other words, the evidence shows that the non-dyslexic reader's brain moves from sight to sound, quickly transferring the visually perception of the word to the parts of the brain invoked in listening to words.***End Quote

~Underlineing mine in both post~

Now notice the part of the brain high functioning dyslexics must use in order to be effective readers. Now isn't this rather close to main streams are of interest in ADD!!!! It isn't the exact same but pretty rootin tootin close. . .Coincidence perhaps but I think it is an awful interesting one none the less. I have thought that dyslexia has been a component for a different style of thinking among certain individuals with ADD for some time but have remain quiet about it until the idea had to form fully and I had more observation time in this. . . .

By the time I posted it I was pretty sure I was on to some thing. . . .35-40% of dyslexic also have ADD and 25-35% of ADD have dyslexia or some form of LD. Those of us who have compensated for our difference are a subset where as the ADD and dyslexic difference have interacted some how to forum the diverse perspective many of us share . . . . .perhaps my high activity level had some thing to do with this development. According to my mom I wiggled a lot in the womb I also continued to move a lot in my sleep so it was not a "Feeling like I had to move" My body HAD to move so much so it did so even when I was asleep!

Maybe my frontal lobe as too much crap shoved into it and it all gets tangled up ....LOL!!!!!

I have always tested as a right brain thinker, this would also explain why my comprehense was so high but not my ability to pronounce. . .spelling is still hard for me.

Any way thought I would share and thanks for being interested in my idea HF! It means at lot to me. . . .I appreciate it.

do wonder though if there is a correlation, would it be because those with meta-minds have less reliance on the attentional mechanisms in the first place, leading to better life outcomes for those afflicted?

This is a valid point I hope you do not mind if I fiddle around with some random thought that this brought to mind.

I think this is caused by a combination effect. Intelligence would be a requirement but not only in abstract reasoning but in inductive abilities as well. If procedure “A” doesn’t work after 12 tries then it will probably not work after 25 without modifications.

This would also lead to acceptance. At my stage in life it is acceptance of self however for me it was made easy by being accepted by my mother. The article really illustrated how important this parenting style of hers was. Had she insisted I learn like every one else or had some one been successful in getting me to learn like every one else then apparently I would have lower comprehension abilities. My brain processes different because it has to.

Perhaps this is where ADD comes into play. It is logical to conclude that not all parents were as accepting as my mother was, therefore learning styles that are counter productive to the individuals natural processing may have been more successfully enforced had the child been able to pay attention long enough. ADD would be an adaptation in the individuals favor as their inability to have their focus consciously control their brain may have adverted harmful techniques by zoning out or in my case bouncing out.


This would lead to favorable out comes in an individual who was smart enough to know what didn’t work for them and learning ways to avoid those situation in favor of areas which were better suited for their brain style This idea lines up perfectly with the ADD hyper-focus effect in area of interest while zoning out or wiggling out of area which are counter to our own styles{or just plain boring}. This would work only if the individual were accepting enough of them self to quit trying to be like every one else and allow them selves to gravitate toward those areas for which they are more suited.

Although may people who dis-like their ADD have been successful to the social standard of today few have succeeded in being accepting of them selves. Perhaps many simply do not know how. Of those individuals who compare them selves to their non-ADD counter partners constantly I have found their learning to be more labored and difficult when compared to my own. They are still trying to shove themselves into a box and a number have succeeded.

The more free flowing individuals are less apt to force our selves into a box and some of us are successful enough by social standards but have failed to reach full potential according to the world view. Personally I may have been able to be a PhD however I would rather be a happy nurse or recycling business partner than to be a miserable PhD. Many meta-minded individual who fail to fully grasp the need for hierchy are also less interested in monetary gains especially if such gains will mean having to constantly deal with atmospheres that are unpleasant or even counter productive to thier own personal growth


Just some possibilities that come to mind when I read your post HF, I am not so set in these ideas that another perspective would be a problem so any comment regarding this would be more than welcome.

No one seems to mind this way of operation -- it is natural to them... they wouldn't give a second thought as to not "following the directions". They have little need to "guess". They are very good beneficiaries of being spoon fed every packet of information needed to live life. Those that reject the spoon spoil the little party that those in authority have... over having less control... over having to accommodate other special cases, because their thinking is often not n-dimensional, but very narrowly defined, and differences are frustrating.

Most excellent observation.

There in lies the "disability" of conditions like ADD, dyslexia, and high functioning autism. If every one kept a messy house or files in piles as opposed to the more horizontal method then having a messy house and stacks of paper would not be considered a disorder. If no one ever participated in small talk then not doing so would be the expected norm. I believe effective function should be more of an emphasis how ever unlike you I did not take into account the control issues many of the more leiner minded types prefer to exert upon their environment and those folk there in. . Unlike the individual ADDer sub-type that prefers the novel, the more narrow minded may feel uncomfortable not knowing what to expect from the neurodiverse individual.

I think this is caused by a combination effect. Intelligence would be a requirement but not only in abstract reasoning but in inductive abilities as well. If procedure “A” doesn’t work after 12 tries then it will probably not work after 25 without modifications.

I think abstract reasoning and inductive logic go together. As someone like chain would state, there is a difference between abstract reasoning and learning [rule-governed] abstractions. Most people are capable of memorizing a set of rules and applying them, and drawing conclusions deductively (i.e. it has four corners, all 90 degrees, and all sides are the same length, therefore it is a square). Inductive reasoning also involves abstraction, but it is the person generating the abstraction, not learning one directly (Comparing all these squares to non squares, I have determined that squares probably have 90 degree angles, etc., etc, or partial induction, even non-rule-governed induction ("fuzzy logic")). But to induct that... that requires abstract reasoning... or an "abstract concept" in chain terms.

Perhaps this is where ADD comes into play. It is logical to conclude that not all parents were as accepting as my mother was, therefore learning styles that are counter productive to the individuals natural processing may have been more successfully enforced had the child been able to pay attention long enough. ADD would be an adaptation in the individuals favor as their inability to have their focus consciously control their brain may have adverted harmful techniques by zoning out or in my case bouncing out.

ToOM (Theory of Other Minds) {courtesy of http://isnt.autistics.org}. If one has parents that don't understand how the child's mind works (a.k.a.... N.T.), this is probably more likely to happen. Or, if the parent is not N.T., but is not very functional, it is also probably more likely to happen. But then again, if the IQ's of offspring are generally within 15 (1 s.d.) points of the parents... high IQ parents ?-> high functioning parents ?-> children predisposed to be high functioning (+/- 15) {dual acting forces.. parents + intrinsic factors?}.

Although may people who dis-like their ADD have been successful to the social standard of today few have succeeded in being accepting of them selves. Perhaps many simply do not know how. Of those individuals who compare them selves to their non-ADD counter partners constantly I have found their learning to be more labored and difficult when compared to my own. They are still trying to shove themselves into a box and a number have succeeded.

<center><table border=0><tr><td>The box..... <br><table border=1><tr bgcolor=red><td><b><span style="color: #FFFFFF"><center>DANGER!!!!</center></span></b></td></tr><tr bgcolor=white><td><center>Do not exit this box.<br>Failure to comply may result in alternative ideas!</center></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></center>

The more free flowing individuals are less apt to force our selves into a box and some of us are successful enough by social standards but have failed to reach full potential according to the world view. Personally I may have been able to be a PhD however I would rather be a happy nurse or recycling business partner than to be a miserable PhD. Many meta-minded individual who fail to fully grasp the need for hierchy are also less interested in monetary gains especially if such gains will mean having to constantly deal with atmospheres that are unpleasant or even counter productive to thier own personal growth

Very much agreed upon... most atmospheres don't deal well with anything that resides outside some collection of [rule-governed] abstractions (corporate policies, stereotypes, xenophobia, etc.).

There in lies the "disability" of conditions like ADD, dyslexia, and high functioning autism. If every one kept a messy house or files in piles as opposed to the more horizontal method then having a messy house and stacks of paper would not be considered a disorder. If no one ever participated in small talk then not doing so would be the expected norm. I believe effective function should be more of an emphasis how ever unlike you I did not take into account the control issues many of the more leiner minded types prefer to exert upon their environment and those folk there in. . Unlike the individual ADDer sub-type that prefers the novel, the more narrow minded may feel uncomfortable not knowing what to expect from the neurodiverse individual.

I suppose their ways are superior in those certain respects... but then again, only in those respects... Yes... it wouldn't be considered a disorder if we were like them, and because of [their] inflexibility... we are "disordered". Disordered -> doesn't fit NT criteria, which + NT inflexibility == major life impairment. I'm sure there are aspects of the impairment that would exist outside of this (well... would ADDers have... made cars that drive themselves by now?). Sure, ADDers would be less efficient at operating in an NT way... but who's to say a world of ADDers would operate in an NT way to begin with? If we subtracted the NT term from the equation, we would have less impairment with the NT term in the equation to begin with (though it would depend on exactly when the NT term was subtracted... such as today vs. 1000 years ago...).

I guess what I do not understand is the lack of diversity acceptance, that simply boggles my mind. It doesn’t take much of a leap in abstract thought to understand if all were farmer then there would be few if any inventions We would still be living in huts, transporting via horse and buggy and using oil lamps at night. However if all were inventor then we would have starved long before our population got the size it is now.

Therefore in order for humans to be able to thrive as a society then diversity is needed.

In biology genetic diversity is necessary for survival as a species. . . think interbredding or intermarrying . . . . the genetic malformation that occur due too similar genetics


Reduced extinction risk by sustaining genetic diversity (http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/obi.asp?Proj_Collab_ID=24)

Inbreeding depression typically results in a reduction in fecundity and survival (Crnokrak & Roff 1999) while low genetic diversity decreases the ability of populations to resist disease and to evolve in response to environmental change (Frankham &Kingslover 2004). There is compelling evidence from a range of studies that inbreeding and the loss of genetic variation contribute significantly to extinction risk (Frankham 2005).***End Quote





When does conservation genetics matter? (http://origin.ww.nature.com/hdy/journal/v87/n3/full/6889400a.html)

At the same time, the importance of diversity in resisting pathogens is becoming more apparent, and the first studies measuring evolutionary potential have shown that it is reduced in inbred lines of fruit flies.***End Quote

So variations are necessary in a biological sense so ti seem counter productive to produce a society that is averse to individual difference.

Apparently I will have to complete this thought when I come back or I fear I shall never get left alone long enough to do so.

I guess what I do not understand is the lack of diversity acceptance, that simply boggles my mind. Having a real problem with this today.
I appear to have rather a temper.
I felt these bubbles - and then had the urge to punch a hole straight through my computer screen.

I'm outraged at the behaviour man can exert on fellow man.
All in the name of hierarchy (physical).
It's hard - and meant with absolutely no malice - but heck ... the 2 people maybe another who I'm referring to are so stupid - that communication is futile.
I can hear their repetitive loop tape going.
'I am important - you will do what I say'

The 2 major offenders have descended into that place which defines the darkest depths of pointlessness offered by that legacy reality.
Paper pushers who don't know anything other than the rules which they introduce for no reason other than - other than - well, I don't know ... ... ...

Honestly ... I think that the urge to have a point in life - leads some to fabricate a point - a fabricated point to life which so misses the mark - that - I can't finish the sentence ...

I look on - not particularly worried about anything other than how difficult it'll be to re-educate the masses - when the supposedly educated are so ignorant.

Extending Tammy's idea - yes money/toilet - but alongside - any notion that one man is better than another.

... we're not - they're not.
no no no no no.
We're people and we can enjoy life without being better than another.

Competition fails.
Collaboration succeeds.

... my - oh - my ...

For some bizarre reason - I'm getting attacked on multiple different levels - for just being me - currently.

Why?

Can people sense happiness?

{they will suck you down to the other side - where the shadows bloom - Radiohead - Hail to the thief}

And do certain others want to steal it -?-
because that's how it feels?

It's like - well - I'm happy to give it all away - but ...
... they just don't understand.

Really - they can't understand.

It's always somebody else's fault.
Never theirs.
And of course - each of them blames the other for stuff - as soon as one of the others - leave the room.

... ho hum - silly people ...

... none of that matters.

And are you enjoying raping my mind?

Because - my mind isn't for raping.

And it has a gun.

And it's pointing right at you head.

And I'm laughing.

And I will show no remorse.

As I pull the trigger on your pointlessness.

--- change --- of --- subject ---

Reduced extinction risk by sustaining genetic diversity
?maybe depression ->- lack of desire for families etc ...
... predominantly - we're in a culture where (like ADD) ->- shared environment and epigenetics can't be torn away from genetics (don't trust the epidemiology - it's loaded with 'cheats' - sadly) ...
So - yes shared genetics, epigenetics, environment ->- depression
and
depressed people are less likely to have families

->- but generating the statistically significant connection between genetics of depression and genetic selection against this subgroup ... is incorrect.
There's no causal link.

Here's an example - 100 bacteria and humans were assessed for wearing spectacles. A statistically significant increase in spectacles in the human group vs the bug group is evidence that bugs have excellent eyesight.

That's what stats do ... in the hands of the p<0.01 publication seekers ...
Create the illusion of causality where none exists.
Makes for a Discussion.

Papers need a Discussion.

And they're all the same.

->- not me, but the hidden thoughts of many of the self-appointed power players ->-

My research is important because it is strongly sugested that I am looking at the root cause of an important aspect of this important disease. Further research is merited - because I need to travel around the world and pretend that I'm great - living off the misery of all the people who I purport to want to help.
Hopefully one day - they'll see how much
I don't care.

->- not me, but the self-appointed important people of medical science ->- ENDS.

When does conservation genetics matter?->- the importance of diversity in resisting pathogens is becoming more apparent, and the first studies measuring evolutionary potential have shown that it is reduced in inbred lines of fruit flies.

Fruit flies though are many abstraction layers off from man.
I believe that 'Vogel and Motulsky' states that infection has provided the greatest push for evolution by genetic mutation ...

... but ever since genetics began to fail - in ensuring our ability to react to environmental change - so did the gene begin to wane in relative importance.

g ->- first epigenetics ->- then mind.

It's funny - but many of our many ailments Tams - are a reprise to our evolutionary past.

Exaptations of mechanisms which were formerly important in our survival.

Histamine kicked the 'a5s' offa' parasites once upon a time
->- and now ->-
->- allergy ->- a relatively modern phenomenon and epidemic.

IgE/histamine.

Histamine of course ->- is a neurotransmitter these days - of the waking state.
It ceased to be of utility vs parasites
and so ... was reused.

So - other diseases:

How about we look at the epidemics of now, of the western world.
Underneath many to all - we shall see an exaptative mechanism representing a side show - a side show offa' the main event.
main event ->- evolution of mind (ADD)

examples of such diseases ->-

atopy [allergy,asthma,eczema]
TII diabetes
obesity
biomechanical problems of back
acne

.. perhaps also:
increased susceptibility to the common cold, viral infections
increased susceptibility to autoimmune conditions
->-
I can work these stories up if you like - gut feeling
->- HLA-B27 - is the culprit.
... pretty sure it forms freaky five membered superstructures - without doin' a search.

Impact felt on ->-
Reduced levels of neurodegenerative conditions (the story of ADD is all about the neurone growing stronger on electrickery)

And all of the above falls out of these ideas - the above list isn't exhaustive - just those diseases which we've already discussed on ADDF -
the important point though is the ubiquity of diseases across all disciplines of medicine ...

... no area is untouched ...

So metabolic, neurological, psychiatric, endocrine, dermatology, respiratory, rheumatoid, haematology, ENT ...
... geeze ... le's just say - all of the artificial subdivisions of medicine.

geeze geeze geeze.

This is all totally obvious.

We're a triumph of exaptative re-use with reprise to former conditions - as the new function for that older protective mechanism - takes off in our plight towards generation of better mind ...

yupsy ...

o-b-v-i-o-u-s to all with a mind to look.

hard rain.

gonna'

fall

Man - not feeling so good.

It's like their negativity sucks our happiness out.

I feel empty after a day's worth of pointless abuse.

So small their minds.

Maybe we can assist them in their search for
... 'if I only had a brain'

{{{bang}}}

- hippy heart of darkness.

The source below is very interesting.


Supernova 1987 was a blue giant star of normal appearance before 'going broody'. Its massive plasma rings were built in less than 10 years. Note the similarity of the center to the Cartwheel galaxy.
source (http://www.fractaluniverse.org/birth.php)
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/images/sn1987.jpg

Cartwheel galaxies ...

[source under image properties]

... at the centre of both the image above and below ...

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/india/in-m.gif

hmmm...

post #160 this thread

... and speaking of which ... how on Earth have we ended up on the correct freakin' thread?

... I mean...

We've rather accrued a freakin' set of freakin' threads in our time ...

anyhow post #160 -

another perspective on the little guys turning cartwheels ...

http://www.korncirkler.dk/universe/spiral2.jpg

2+2 == 5
Radiohead
Hail to the thief

... incidentally
2+2==5 is emergence

greater than the sum of the parts.

lyrics:

'Are you such a dreamer, to put the world to rights

Where two and two always makes a five

Payin' attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention
yeah I feel it, I needed attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention
Yeah I need it, I needed attention
I needed attention
I needed attention
I needed attention
Yeah I love it, the attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention
Payin' attention

Don't question my authority or put me in the box, coz I'm not'

<table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>The box.....
<table border="1"><tbody><tr bgcolor="red"><td><center>DANGER!!!!</center></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td><center>Do not exit this box.
Failure to comply may result in alternative ideas!</center></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Therefore in order for humans to be able to thrive as a society then diversity is needed.

In biology genetic diversity is necessary for survival as a species. . . think interbredding or intermarrying . . . . the genetic malformation that occur due too similar genetics

That is very true from an overall perspective, though subsets of the population probably function better with lack of diversity...

I have read in the past that when you take the human race into consideration and dissect a subset based upon an IQ range, the lower the IQ's in the range, the more similarities one will find between the members of that subset. For example, all people between 60 and 70 will probably be more similar than all people between 130 and 140. The reasoning here is that as the IQ increases, the range of possible interests one could have also increases, which is due to an increase in ability. This is probably best described through capacity for abstract reasoning.... if one can only deal with the concrete, then it will be very predictable what that person's interests will be (can only be what has externally influenced that person... what is around), and with the low IQ (which usually comes with mostly concrete thinking), one's ability to expand is limited.

Putting that into perspective, the lower IQ subsets may subconsciously fear the higher IQ subsets as diversity challenges their survival from the aforementioned relationship. If such individuals cannot effectively co-operate (specifically, at the same level), then such individuals are less valuable to the population... perhaps impacting survival. This xenophobic behavior probably limits the population of the more diverse... giving way to a "homeostasis" of sorts. So... they don't value diversity... but they do. The philosophy is... "diversity is fine, as long as it's not in our vicinity..." "It goes against our system of operation."

But that's simply one side of the story... it's a perspective... perhaps shapes personality types (could be correlated to "functional types").

I'm not commenting on 'if I only had a brain'.

Because all have one.

Whether one chooses to link it with their mind, is a puzzle.

The 'draining' process, is akin to what the Dementors *do*
(in Harry Potter books).

Purpose:
Draining Joy, Hope, Compassion, and eventually Life.
Replacing it with Apathy.

Most 'think' Dementors are fictional 'creatures'.

Yet they exist, very much in 'true life' form.
Draining the emotions of others, without 'giving back'.

Of course...
One couldn't *see* oneself as a Dementor.

Only those have *felt* their 'purpose', recognize them.
And there are many, many Dementors.

If you ask me...
A kin of Fear.
The opposite of Love.


Subsets and Categories...

All a 'form' of Separation.

Love and Fear.
The only True Feelings.


De-Illusion.
I've been 'named' as such.

It only has affect if I finally give in, and become full of Apathy.

It's easy to give in.
To be in the box.
To be part of the 'majority'.

I have read in the past that when you take the human race into consideration and dissect a subset based upon an IQ range, the lower the IQ's in the range, the more similarities one will find between the members of that subset. For example, all people between 60 and 70 will probably be more similar than all people between 130 and 140. The reasoning here is that as the IQ increases, the range of possible interests one could have also increases, which is due to an increase in ability. This is probably best described through capacity for abstract reasoning.... if one can only deal with the concrete, then it will be very predictable what that person's interests will be (can only be what has externally influenced that person... what is around), and with the low IQ (which usually comes with mostly concrete thinking), one's ability to expand is limited.[QUOTE]
- as a snapshot - but there is a shift to high IQ - we're seeing the slightly more
refractory to change
group clinging onto the failing paradigm -
power
and these people, unable to see through the eyes of those who embrace change and change
... we are forced to endure frequent mental insults to appease their wont - desires grounded in the logic of subjectivity - the illogic of subjectivity given their failure to understand that rrreality is not equal to RRReality - that they could be wrong.
Self righteous under misguided illusion that the higher in a physical hierarchy are also that in a logical hierarchy - of mind - and of course - are not - an inverse relationship (often - though not always) ... between
money,power,desire
and
'clever,intelligence,wisdom'

[QUOTE] Putting that into perspective, the lower IQ subsets may subconsciously fear the higher IQ subsets as diversity challenges their survival from the aforementioned relationship.
To mention though that IQ arises as a consequence of developing mind.
Given a context for education, nurture - anybody can have the IQ which those environmental factors would confer. Severed - the importance of genetic change - to mental behaviour.
Honestly - though - for the most part - genes to us are becoming part of the furniture - like atoms - not the agent of change (level-mind)
- just kinda' like we won't see any changes in the known higher levels of subatomic physics.
With time and evolution up ...
genetics will tend towards eg the fixed components of subatomic physics.
yes - important
->- not our tool for shifting to our environment's shifting requirements.

If such individuals cannot effectively co-operate (specifically, at the same level), then such individuals are less valuable to the population... perhaps impacting survival.
Such individuals lag behind - but will catch up.
Survival is kinda' - at this level - not of the man - but of the rrreality models which form the mind.
Such minds are of less utility to those people under the new paradigm of man as a social animal.

This xenophobic behavior probably limits the population of the more diverse... giving way to a "homeostasis" of sorts. So... they don't value diversity... but they do. The philosophy is... "diversity is fine, as long as it's not in our vicinity..." "It goes against our system of operation." The homeostatic point changes though - with time - as rrreality is infected - the meme with better explanatory power of RRReality within rrreality will win.
It is far stronger a pull than the evolutionary legacy to need to feel
-more powerful than-
... since - it is an emergent property on a higher layer of abstraction.

The emergent property of mind will sweep aside only those lower emergent properties (characters) against which it clashes.
Man as social animal cannot exist alongside rrreality held concept of man as better than other man.
Social fails ->- not good.
->-
And, incidentally - illegal by rules of 'evolution.'

NEW form will win.
We can speed the change.
Ideas are the infection of change.

All of this goes away when
Evolution yadda' yadda' - universal theory meets Stabile's model for mind ie reason for structural changes in mind - architecture of legacy and new form.
rrr folds - eyes open.
rrr reforms - new form - restart,

But that's simply one side of the story... it's a perspective... perhaps shapes personality types (could be correlated to "functional types").Heck Chain.
:-)
Functional types - the stuff we do is a function of our personality - but we're not static.
Bipolarity is built into us - and we change as our mind develops.
I'm hyperactive or inattentive dependent on what I'm doing.

In snapshot - that is true - importantly though it misses out on the important point - that everything changes
... including us

... we're a particular most excellent instantiation of RRReality.

All changes.
Continuously.
Not just 'physically'.

Very 'few' accept this concept.

Ridicule.
The Concept of the Millenium.



[QUOTE] importantly though it misses out on the important point - that everything changes
... including us

... the image is of an onion - with all concentric layers pulsating randomly - seemingly independently - and then folded in upon itself - over on itself - twisted and turned ...
but still pulsating - just like before all of these manipulations were applied.

Within this cosmic onion - are pockets of local energetic disruptions - in which emergent energetic evolution leads to local structure - so image ->-

... imagine a local region of loosely layered levels of an onion - 'pushed' - by energetic infusion into a local onion of identical structure to the onion within which it is housed.

geeze - gotta' remember to stick the onion sets into the ground

oopsy ...

now imagine that the big uber onion is real big.
And that the local onion is 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000th the size of that big onion.

And that the local onion is one of us - or the planet.

A kinda' energy in constant motion within that uber structure all wound up - local regions of energy collecting - giving rise to structure in a small section of that onion - one day - an unwinding of the onion - regenerating perfect form onion - oscillating - as described - before winding occurs.

Kinetic energy as the process of alteration of the concentric rings into locally energetically favourable form.

Potential energy - as the onion - in onion form - no longer unwinding.

Potential energy though - or local potential energy is seen within the mimic nano emergent structure of same basic shape as the larger onion
->- of local onion of the same exact shape (just smaller) ->- than global onion
... forms.

So - we see the release of energy on emergence when this occurs - the kinetic energy of emergence giving it up for the locally more stable form of potential energy within that freshly emergent nano local onion structure.

Thanks Nove - dude - I meant it.

~s

E=MC2

Energy= Mass AND Light (squared)
BOTH.


I am exhausted.
Of finding the 'words' to 'describe' E's perception.

And exhausted of 'assumed' De-Illusion-In.
As he was.


As many who keep 'trying'.

Since m is an emergent property - so ->- m can tend towards zero -
leading to E represented by a c (elevated) - as m tends towards zero
ie
E = m c2
eg
500 = 5 102
so
500 = 20/9[2 2/9] 152

so m (eg 5 ->- 2 2/9)
->- tends ->-
0
... so c (eg 10 ->- 15) tends uppawards (sky high)

The transition to emergent layer where mass arose ->-
required the reverse of this process to occur ie m emerging and increasing, whilst c played out the converse - interestingly - with a
raised to the power of 2

implication?
abstraction layer ->- ascent ->-
is favourable

or

evolution up abstraction layers
->- leads to ->-
release of factorial - energy

== an order of magnitude.

???Energetically - the pull to that global onion occurs using