Hi dude,

rico wrote:
I did not see that there was already a forum discussion under the tutorial 9 heading, so I am going ahead and starting one here now. 

...Maybe we should have called this thread, “Tutorial 9 Reloaded”  :  )


[r]In tutorial 9 we read about CC sets like polarity, continuum, balance, cycle and spiral and density.  I personally picture these as graphics and I wondered if it is in the grid cells within N3 that these graphics actually occur. 

Wow, nice thought; this is very interesting ...I guess I'd see the 'whole grid' as a continuum though***, similar to the way 'the whole universe' is a continuum, or the 'whole sky' is a continuum...If all events are then located in that continuum it would make sense to classify them as points IN that continuum (like, a galaxy would be an emergent event involving agents (stars, planets etc) in the 'background' continuum of space).
However, my mind is having difficulty bridging the gap between this and core concept sets per se... so we'll go on with the questions and maybe that will help me to do so...


[r] I mean are these CC sets directly related to the 6 archetypes as they would be "eidectly" represented on the grid? 

As far as I can understand the question, yes. Ordinarily eidetics seem to be 'placed' according to associated location (coordinates) on the overall grid (part of N2's input to N3).
Ordinary concept sets (such as, 'color') are physically represented in the grid as the patterns of neuronal firing associated with events, things or backgrounds relevant to those coordinates, and ALL coordinates in the same area (of the map) will relate to one core concept (color relates to density, for example).

But if we jump to a core-concept set such as 'the electromagnetic spectrum', we find it is legitimately associated with every core concept (eg, space = amplitude, time = frequency, power = intensity, E=mc2, and so on.) Every core concept can be usefully associated with 'the electromagnetic spectrum' in ways that enable us to measure and learn things.


[r] And it seems obvious to me that continuum is most associated with matter, polarity with space, density with weight, cycle with time and spiral with energy and balance with power.

I don't get how you get most of these associations (did that make sense?)  :  )  They are not in the same category...I get 'weight' for density. But 'spiral', 'continuum', 'cycle', 'polarity' are one type of phenomena/concept, and 'balance' is another kind of concept and weight yet another. the weight of an object is usually taken to be the measure of the force on the object due to gravity, afaik. Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume. But 'spiral' etc is not a measure of anything; do you get what I'm saying here? To make congruous associations, all the things we are interpreting must be of the same sort (for example “gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force” -all these are of the same category -they're ALL fundamental forces, and we could legitimately try to associate one with each core concept.)* But we can't take, say, “Gravity, electromagnetism, a triangle, balance” and make a congruous comparison, because triangles and balance are not forces.

To be congruous, we also have to be able to explain (and so understand) consciously why the association exists; for example, a spiral is a repetitive phenomenon and so associates with time, a cycle is a series of repetitive events, the very thing we use time to measure**. A polarity is something which has two 'ends', usually in some type of opposition or complementation; for example positive/negative. We encounter this concept most often in terms of electromagnetics (batteries & magnetism) so I would tend to go with 'power' although 'energy' would be a possibility. There has to be (at the unconscious end) a real world physical association, for congruity. If a concept is congruous, the conscious mind should be able to elucidate that physical reality.

Hope this helps, I think we need to discuss this a bit more for me to really know where to go from here, so over to you dude  :  )
Best,
AR
*Don't try this at home, folks! 
**'Time'  is a concept we use to perceive and measure repetitive events. We could not find any meaning in the concept 'cycle' if we had no concept for time.
***Or is it a map of the continuum? LOL  :  )

Hi dude,


Re: lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVX1M5r_AA

Wow this is very good; some will find it a bit frontloader but its packed full of lots of info on network sync details. He does an excellent job of explaining the 'concrete-to-abstract' nature of network use, summarized in, “Same process, different context”. Also an excellent demonstration of the scientific method -looking at how hypotheses are constructed, eliminated or proven.
I feel he had struggled to decide which bits to leave out, he was still packing contextual info into the post-lecture questions, eg, “I'm only talking about the Dorsal Hippocampus, btw”. I wish this lecture had been a series.  :  )  The only thing that slowed me down was difficulty recognizing certain terms in his accent, so I had to re-run a few segments.


Re: the hippocampus, where N2 Spacial aspects of processing happen.

The hippo is part of N3, and doesn't process N2 spatial data; it processes N3 spatial data. Sorry, that sounds confusing, -I'll explain: N2 and N3 process different aspects of spatial data; N2 deals with 2-dimensional mapping coordinates and motion, and N3 deals with 3D navigation and to some extent coordination. (N4 is also involved in spatial processing in terms of coordination, pattern, timing & symmetry recognition; complex construct recognition (such as faces), and the fine-tuning of dextrous motion.)


Re: And basically the hippocampus has N3 functions, it is a library, self-referntial and written by evolution, as even Mr. Gyorgey Buzsake in the video says.

It would make more sense to include the cortex in this model, since that's the part that would be analogous to the library's 'archives'. N3 is like the library's admin dept; where stuff comes in and is sorted to be classified and stored in the relevant area, but also like a search engine for memory retrieval via key concept association. I got the impression Buzsake would have liked to go further into this but I suspect time restrictions didn't allow.
There's a similar model in JCP's Magical Child; he uses an old-style telephone switchboard to explain the system.


Re: Even N2 functions of space are an aspect of all computation.

Most networks take part in processing input that isn't emergency/automatic. Rear nets alone process automatic responses, as it's a lot faster.


Re: Literally the way the nerves are spaced in relation to each other is literally the way the brain organizes the environment. This helps complete my understanding of the NH model of the brain mind as a map and not the territory.

That's great; this is a concept a lot of people find it difficult to grasp. The 'territory' is both the real world 'out there' (as rendered by N3) AND the cytoarchitecture of the brain in which as you say location and categorization are correlated. Network architecture is the physical analog (analogy; representation,) of the abstract mental process which uses context to impart meaning to concepts (where 'context' is 'location').
You can also now see how in plasticity, changes in the network architecture are analog representations of changes in the real world AND changes in mental conceptualization, right? ...cool, innit?  :  )


Re: I would bring up the ideas in the video helps me understand the fractal aspect of the NH model. Emergence of organized time, emergence of organized matter, emergence of organized energy... What about the spiral though? We represent fractals as spirals consiously.

I usually associate DNA with spirals as a first association. For me, the fractal that first comes to mind is the Mandelbrot set (the little icon we use for the 'towards entelechy' section of tutorials), and then, snowflakes and snail shells.  We will all have different associations with the concept 'fractal'; there is nothing unique about spiral fractal designs per se; although fractals themselves have unique properties.
Spirals are much more than fractals. Earth transcribes a spiral in its motion through space over time. Plants form spirals as a climbing mechanism, all screws & bolts have a spiral thread, and so on. The details are not so important as the underlying concept. We know what a spiral looks like, we know a repetitive spiral is different from a repetitive cycle (the former is 3-dimensional, the latter 2D).


Re: And isnt the brain also physically a fractal structure?

It would certainly appear to have fractal organization at every scale; networks form a 'critical dynamic system' and we already know memory uses fractal storage and neurons themselves are fractal. This is sorta 'advanced NH' category, but:
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/inf … bi.1000314
There's a more user-friendly, 'rabbit section'-type discussion of this paper here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the … l-thoughts
this article even uses the term, 'stress' in the correct way!  :  )
Nice vid here: “Fractal Dynamics in the Resting Brain”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hftso0vmjI

If you research 'fractal brains', you're also gonna come across Wai Tsang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wai_H._Tsang
...quite a character -check out the list of subjects he studies; it's rather eclectic  :  )  His views are rather uncannily like those of the dude in the 'controversial TED talk', but his framing of the concepts makes more sense to me (note: me understanding concepts coherently is not at all the same thing as me agreeing with them).  :  )


Re: In the video I understand it to be that this concept of fractal is most densly realized structurally in the very self-referential N3?

I didn't spot any direct discussion of fractals in the vid I watched.
-Did I watch the wrong video?  :  )
Best,
AR