Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Sentience, Bias, and The Neuro Physique + +



                   Spinoza was the first philosopher to unify the body with the mind as the singular totality of self. In his "Ethics" he advocated abandoning dualism when it comes to our "Idea of the Body." This awareness of self integrates what previously was the popularly dualistic religious schism, denigrating the body as low and separable from the self. Like Spinoza and all of our earliest pre religions, I am "Pantheist," not an atheist. Probably a small distinction.  

                    My research is primarily concerned with the cultivation of self awareness about our self. Most of what we call Identity occurs at the subconscious level of Signature Behaviors and Echo Imprints. Generally, most of us have no awareness of how we identify each other until at such time, when we give voice to our perceptions of what accounts for this distinctiveness of others. The color of her hair, the sound of her voice, the depth of my feelings. Are you with me so for?

                    In my work I postulate that the Boundaries of Identification (Personal Profile) are not always Self Defined. Most people experience separateness as a barrier. I'm in no way suggesting that these boundaries need to be removed, I merely pose that "Linguistically" our coding for a "Sense of Self" is mutually defined. On these grounds alone, our concept or "Idea of the Self," is by definition the word, "I". Self Referencing does not define the self. I've been advocating turning and facing interpersonal boundaries not as barriers of separation, but as "shared point sets of contact." The problem with looking at the Human Neuro Physique as merely a set of Propositional Algorithms, is that I suspect this negates the origins of sentience to linguistics only. You want to talk about "Self," this is the domain of aesthetics, not language. I know my views on the Myth of Linguistic Sentience, is particularly unpopular amongst code geeks. But rather than merely disagree, I review the essentials of my work to date. 

                    Now as "The Reader" I've been trained to plumb these "Boundaries of Distinction," adeptly and adroitly. Mutually exclusive contrary Opinion Biases (Social Recursion) and the conflicting "Vital Paradoxes," are major components of our Institutions of Self Defining Mutually Exclusive Boundary Definitions. I've sighted about six of these unanswerable "Vital Paradoxes." For instance, "Does God exist? Now I myself do not believe in a personal god, (Outside of the all powerful google of course,) But, an absence of proof is no proof. Even if I don't believe in god does not mean I'm right. As a boundary dispute, I personally think there are much more important issues. You may disagree, but the whole point of living in a pluralistic society is Shifting Opinion Biases. This is why I stole Neil Bohr's "Complementarity" and applied it to analyzing the transformative effects of conflicting opinion biases in the face of our ever changing central unknown. I also believe that as we study the Neuro Physics of the brain in conflict resolution, we will see a "Field of Consciousness" doing it's job. The unknown is a usable energy that drives the human "Neuro Physique."

                   Modern man however has a perverse fascination with ego, and resultantly we have bad social codes, not very self aware. My research suggest that we need to look to the origins of sentience in pre language. I do not seek to disagree with your supposed "Choice" of language, I only want to understand the actual limitations of Symbolic Languages. Heuristics and algorithms are only input strings. Symbolic Language does not even begin to define the "Self," except as an external calculus. Now as a lover of "Code" I must defend my own petty hair splitting, as an affect of my much deeper drives for a survival instinct. Our brains are patterned by the awareness of uncertainties which abound. This is that " Void of Content" that is at the core of our focused attention. My Question is; How did we come to this very meaningful, if contentious, dialog about being and non being. Which is the nature of our shared personal realities? We are, I suggest thinking animals, not thinking machines. Thank you very much.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Is there anybody out there?