Specifics: Re: "simply the soil from which a network springs?" = No. You'd need somewhere safe for soil to be (eg, where it wouldn't be washed away or eroded), soil (your input), and a source of energy like heat, for a matrix.
Re: N4: Society/Material world = No. N4 = CULTURE (the way in which one generation passes on its knowledge & abilities to the next - eg, science, art, music, gardening, childcare, spirituality etc, via interaction with bonded mentors, and media like books & websites.)
Re: hardware: In a brain it would be accurate to say a matrix needs hardware, energy, and input. If the matrix were just the hardware, preserved dead brains would still work and brains in jars would emit EEG sigs. That would be weeeeeeird, man. : )
The 'missing brain' from here: http://www.neurohackers.com/index.php/e … l1?start=1
is back. We don't know where it went, but hope it had a nice time.
Whenever we ask questions in science, the answers raise more questions : ) This is not as nuisancical as it might at first glance seem; in fact it's vital for the ongoing creation of understanding.
Original question:
Is there a diagram or page outlining the platform, input and energy sources for each matrix? As well as the name of each matrix?
No there isn't; but there should be. In fact this is a great mail as it inspires me to tidy up a lot of loose ends. I haven't had much time to revisit Matrix theory as it's not a major area students look at; until now there have not been many questions and I tend to prioritize areas that students ask a lot about. So I shall diverge here into the areas in question, and attempt to answer them as best I currently can.
Matrix theory applies to everything involving emergence; not just brains or networks. Mars, for example, may or may not be a Matrix. We know it has a possible safe space for life to develop (underground), we know it has energy provided by the sun. But we don't yet know if it has the right input (which would probably involve basic building blocks like amino acids, plus liquid water, although we know some extremophiles that can manage with ice).
It's partly in order to keep this 'universality' of matrices clear that I've been wary of prematurely giving official names to matrices, they've just been numbered, because the details are different for different creatures; for example, for many insects the first phase of development is an egg, the second is a larva, the third is a pupa and the fourth the adult form. Their matrices are going to be very different from ours, as are those of a fish, whose final matrix will be the ocean.
For humans, we can work out the platform, energy and required input (although you will see a problem):
1 womb / placenta / fertilization for egg + (at birth) sensorimotor input
2 carer / breastmilk / spatial input (achieved by carrying in arms as carer moves around, + play)
3 the natural world / hunting & gathering food / contents of the planet (environmental input)
4 culture / gardening, processing & cooking food / stories & demonstrations (procedural input)
5 mind / brain / facts, data & information (declarative input)
6 entelechy / humans / interaction (working memory input)
The problem: we are of course ultimately getting energy from the sun, after it has been processed by plants or animals we then eat, so this categorization is by no means clear cut.
Some of the early stuff I wrote on all this was wrong and must now be updated (another good reason for doing this now) : )
Question 1. Why is the safe space in which to interact, explore and learn called the platform? It seems like what's being developed, at least from a computer analogy perspective, is the platform. The actual hardware, firmware and architecture. Am i wrong on that?
Platform is not a good name, it was kinda difficult to find anything that wouldn't confuse, “safe space” sounds a bit too vague, “Fairly consistent local environment able to house the content” is way too long and at the time the term 'platform' was being used for brain versus machine location for AI, which I was reading a lot about. But the confusion between software platform and hardware platform has rather wrecked it.
The actual hardware is what was meant; not the software (the software is the processes of interaction). So I wondered if we could rewrite the needs for a matrix as Matter, Energy and Input. However, this doesn't work either because some of the input is often matter too, so the distinction isn't clear enough between the matter in our safe place and the matter required as input.
The question emerges: are all matrices of the material concrete nature, or could spacetime be considered a matrix for our universe? It is a continuum...so I wondered if 'continuum' could replace safe space, but not all matrices are continua even though a continuum can be considered a safe space. So that's a no.
In T11 I'm looking at the categorization habits of different networks and N2's marvelous way of classifying everything as 'objects' 'containers' and 'conduits', I thought of using 'a container' as the spatial requirement for a matrix.
That leaves us with “A stable container, energy, and input” as the requirements. This may be the best choice yet, but I'm open to suggestions.
What's being developed is of course the entity emerging IN the matrix; in our case intelligence.
...I accidentally left a simple matrix on my desk before going away, in the form of a mug of almost-finished tea. After a week in a stable container given the energy of a warm room and the input of cold tea, I found many islands of green furry life were emerging from the interactions taking place there...
Question 2.
Does each Matrix have a specific nomenclature?
I think we've covered this in what I wrote already...? To go into it a little, take for example Matrix 2. The real 'matrix' is literally in the carer's arms being carried around the local territory interacting all day, so we could call Matrix 2 “in arms matrix” and that would be more accurate than 'carer matrix' but still doesn't imply motion and interaction. Names are static and matrices are dynamic; they require more description than one or two words. Some have suggested 'continuum matrix' for matrix 2 and that's a great name, but few readers will understand the implications of the name unless they have read Liedloff's 'Continuum Concept'. Every name that adequately describes a Matrix is either overly long or requires some prior knowledge to interpret.
The same descriptive problem arises for other types of matrix -for example the first matrix for a bird is a fertilized egg inside a bird, sure we could call that the 'egg matrix', but once the egg is laid the next matrix would have to be called “An-egg-in-a-nest-being-sat-on-by-a-bird matrix” : )
The context always has to be taken into consideration as part of the matrix.
Question 3.
In the first matrix, the matrix is described as being the Fertilized Womb. However, the Platform is also the fertilized womb, is it not? And in this case, the input is the fertilized womb as well. Or at least components of the fertilized womb, i.e. nutrients and the umbilicus. This is where I'm getting confused.
A matrix provides all three things; (to use the original terms) platform, energy and input. A fertilized womb provides a platform, energy and input, therefore it's a matrix. An unfertilized womb is not a matrix, as it only provides two of the three things.
Question 4. In one of the tables, there is a category for where primary environmental input is coming from. Are those the same as the Matrix? The Platform? The Input?
Primary environmental input for the emerging entity is provided by interaction with the matrix. That's not the same as “Input comes from the matrix”, because our senses need to interact with environmental input in order to make it 'our' input. For example it's no use having parents if they never interact with us, and it's no use there being a culture if nobody ever reads or views it.
Input is sometimes highly specific, but sometimes the details are irrelevant; for example the bonding steps that must be taken at birth to calibrate our senses and 'switch them on' is what moves us into matrix 2 and those requirements are highly specific, yet the certain critical mass of being carried about outdoors in matrix 2 that enables the shift to matrix 3, or the certain critical mass of stories in matrix 3 that enables creativity to blossom in network 4 are just a matter of sufficient practice or experience in a particular type of activity. In summary correct input is simply 'play', and the developing entity's intent, given optimal choices, drives the subject matter to be 'played with'. Play begins before birth and should continue throughout life.
I GOT THIS WRONG ABOVE AND SO HAVE REMOVED IT. Apologies for any confusion!
We can't have a 'Matrix name for N1' etc, because each matrix develops more than a single network (another big difference between matrices & networks). For example matrix 1 develops the whole of network 1 and some of network 2. Only when sufficient density has built up in network 2 can intelligence 'shift matrix' INTO network 2 and finish off this network -then start work on network 3, and so on. Network 6 therefore has a pretty easy time because all it's got to do is finish off building itself* : )
I think the short table I made above covers the 'breakdown', but we have to bear in mind (1) Only interaction with the matrix enables emergence and (2) the 'context' alone can't accurately name the matrix. Matrix provides context + energy + input.
Bits:
Context for matrix 2 is 'in arms of bonded carer'.
Context for matrix 3 is NOT 'a safe environment'. It is the natural world; dangers, hazards, warts and all. That's why carers are with us until age 7.
Main input for M3 is stories.
Context for matrix 5 is self/mind. The mind gets its energy from the brain.
After more consideration, Context for M6 is really the universe, and input for matrix 6 is reality 'in toto'. I originally put 'entelechy' and 'interaction' in the table above which is too limiting. It could be argued that the energy-provider is the universe directly; not humans, but its through our transformation of energy into power via food & technology that our energy becomes available; for example we have made fire, wind and water sources of energy.
If there's anything still missing, let me know. From here on I'll try to remember to use 'context/energy/input' instead of platform. Also making a note to review old stuff on matrix theory so as not to confuse newbies...
Best,
AR
*Unless it's up to something we don't know about...
AR
Forum 
