ILP's_The_information_sandwich

[Amorphos]

Please use ILP_thread_type_rules ~ below the content text at the bottom of the page.

The information sandwich

I have spoke of this before but I thought I’d put up the idea for specific discussion and reference.
The information sandwich is essentially an undivided extant basic description of how the fundamental aspects of reality interact.
The fundamental natures are;

/ | \
a, Information
b, Holistic entities; Objects/forces/energy
c, consciousness

The fundamental abilities are;

Cc, Transmigration [and change/motion/events]
Aa, Relationships
Bb, Entity [forming of a, or b, or c]


Info derived from objects; {x}

*~/<>\|¬_-^`}{`^-_¬|\<>/~*~/<>\|¬_-^`}{`^-_¬|\<>/~*~/<>\|¬_-^`}{`^-_¬|\<>/~*

Fluid objects [holographic reality]; {y}

[] () ^^^^>>>><<<<<[] () ^^^^>>>><<<<<[] () ^^^^>>>><<<<<[] () ^^^^>>>>

Primary or background information {z}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~””””””””””””””””””””++++++++++++++++¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Consciousness appears to occur where informations communicate in a self referential manner or as an internal free will. At least there is a relationship between consciousness and communications where communication is literally the relationship between informations.

Ontology 1. All things contain information about themselves.
1b. Or are themselves informational.
1c. Information may be a physical pattern.
1d. Information may be a description or describer of an entity physical or not [e.g. consciousness].
1e. Information may be the relationship or the description of that and between any of the above.

Ontology 2. All things relate.
2b. X, y, z, must be connected, must relate.
2c. Disparate parties don’t need to relate, though are always in a relationship.

Ontology 3. Consciousness and entity {y} are mutually exclusive.
3b. You cannot fit info into a physical object [except of kind 1c], it may only relate to it.
3c. You can fit information into consciousness.
3d. An experience includes an experiencer which is within the context of consciousness.
3e. An experience forms a relationship between the experiencer and informations [hence 3c].

Ontology 4. The will is the act of information distribution.
4b. Extrapolated informations may become part of the experiencers constitution.
4c. Undesired informations may not become part of the experiencers constitution.
4d. Undesired informations may temporarily become part of the experiencers constitution [so as to be known].
4e. The experiencer has a composition of gathered informations and sets of.
4f. Some of those [4e] relate to or become part of the physical constitution ‘y’ as required.
4g. Some of those [4e] transmigrate as conceptual info from ‘x’ to ‘z’ [as ontology 5].

Ontology 5. Correlating informations form relationships.
5b. If an information of type ‘x’ correlates to one of type ‘z’, a relationship is formed.
5c. Such a relationship may result in ‘x’ transmigrating to type ‘z’.
5d. All kinds of reality are interchangeable.

Ontology 6. If not ‘y’ then ‘x’ becomes ‘z’.
6b. ‘x’ is formed and sustained by ‘y’.
6c. ‘y’ is formed and sustained by ‘z’.
6d. Remove the relationship between ‘x’ and ‘y’ [e.g. in death], then the relationships of ‘x’ and ‘z’ become direct.

Ontology 7. When ‘y’ breaks the relationship x, y, z, ’z’ transcends ‘y’ via ‘x’; the loss of connections of ‘y’ creates a demand for ‘y2’.
7b. ‘y2’ is ‘y’, as a secondary connection x, y, z,.
7c. ‘y’ to ‘y2’ is cyclic.
7d. all unbroken relationships are cyclic.


_

Thread rules;

If you make or reply to an ILP_thread

1. You should either publicly concede a point or reply in full to a given point.
2. If asked, you should concede an entire reply or answer it in full.
3. Your replies must be specifically on topic.
4. If you make a relevant tangent: make a new thread, reply on the ILP_thread stating its title and purpose.
5. Emotion in debating is irrelevant, don’t do it here.
6. Egoism, scoring points and any manner of putdowns are infantile, don’t do it here.
7. don’t discuss grammar or anything extraneous to the point and meaning of the thread. If you feel the meaning can be put in a more grammatically correct manner, and without that demeaning the context and art as the author sees it, then make another thread where it can be debated.
8. Long dead ILP_threads should be remade and relevant points taken from it, or restarted from new.
9. Do not noticeably bypass other replies bar the one you are replying to. If asked you should reply or concede points made in non-answered replies.
10. Make solid opening points, if the post is on a well known issue then state the accepted argument/s plus your own if different. Preferably state the argument you agree with or are arguing against, and do it in as expedient manner as possible, or link to the given argument/s.
11. Back up your claims. If you are debating from a known stand point, then back it up with links to that argument.
12. Accept art. Philosophy can be formal and rather cold, if a reply is made which does not conform to a given argument or standard, then it doesn’t have to be made to! Many of the above points are for clarification on known arguments, unknown or otherwise new arguments [even if assumed] should be taken as they are and hence do not have to conform to given standards. There is not much point if all we are doing is reiterating known arguments, without an attempt to find new meaning.

_

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Not only did you not speak of this before, but you still do not speak of it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7DRC9I5boA

I grew up on that. Gotta break it down a little bit for those of us who shoot peanuts out of our noses.

[Amorphos]

Lol interesting vid.

Basically I’m saying that the universe cycles between information sets, we begin with the informations which objects take instruction from, then they move in their orbits etc, interact and produce patterns of information. So we have two layers of info with objects inbetween, ergo the information sandwich.

[Calrid]

Not only did you not speak of this before, but you still do not speak of it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7DRC9I5boA

I grew up on that. Gotta break it down a little bit for those of us who shoot peanuts out of our noses.

I am offended by that, I am as I have ever been a Dorito munching prole.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

So you have a universe of information who's information we interpret to be reality rotating information? Is it a single big disk, or a multiplex of them, each acting as a gear, where we can only see one side of them at any time, being a holographic projection of a moment? Or something else all together?

How would we change our perspective? And how can we improve Calrid's diet?

[Amorphos]

So you have a universe of information who's information we interpret to be reality rotating information? Is it a single big disk, or a multiplex of them, each acting as a gear, where we can only see one side of them at any time, being a holographic projection of a moment? Or something else all together?

Take us out of the equation for a moment, this has little to do with interpretation [though it does for us].

Prior to the physical universe and underpinning it, there is background information which when objects appear take their instruction from. Then objects move around and interact creating a second set of information.

Now consider that all information ‘exists’ - in a manner of speaking, in the same ‘place’ [as info has no cardinality or physicality except in the patterns it makes [so there is nothing to divide info sets]].
That info communicates.
That informations would be exchanged and sometimes merged.
Hence that interaction cycles as things change throughout time.

There is no hard-disk as there is no physical reality as such ~ only a probabilistic and quantum holographic one.

calrid can eat virtual doritoes for all eternity.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Okay, I know what your talking about now in the reply- I've done a lot of theoretical work in cellular autonomata and inversing guys like Plato, Nagarjuna, and Nietzsche's anti-nihilistic/progressive dialectics in relationship to imaginative functions such as shape and form myself- it's some of my best work in how I broke out, just never really get a chance to express it because of the Dasein barrier and WTP 529 gets people stumped rather fast when approach traditionally and not neurologically.

Still stumped on the original post given left hemispheric issues (my issues, not necessarily anyone else's), can you break down the mechanics of your categorization into selective strings of this to this to this to this- doesn't matter what it is (I understand the holographic approach, don't worry, won't trip and assume), just so I can see how your thought process is unfolding in reference to the mass. You can set up a few different patterns if you choose.

[Amorphos]

Just never really get a chance to express it because of the Dasein barrier

Sounds interesting; where the Dasein barrier a manner of naturalisation ~ of bringing seemingly unreal into the real I assume?

My theory should probably suffer the same fate if either of ours actually do? What is everydayness though, or a manner of reality as perceived to be the normal? Are we not simply describing reality as devoid of perspective [at least in my case I hope I am]. For me it is more real that we belong to the universal sets, that what’s going on within is also going on without, indeed to poke a finger in the eye of Dasein, that is more real that a normal perspective view of reality.

My problem is that ideas like in the op arrive in the course of the artistic process, like a song or piece of art from the void. I just see information as working cyclically, how we interpret that is quite another thing and could appear to make the idea false in application. Hence I made little attempt to say ‘how’ it works in the real world.

e.g. if we were to accept the notion in QM where the world redraws itself in every instance, then I’d say this would occur as information just as much as physically. That would then in my mind deny the ‘multi worlds interpretation‘, as everything would be re-thought or re-evaluated within the context of universe, and not in many universes.
It would also connect moments together and then time would exist, we would be living in the universe as it presents itself, as moving along ~ how’s that for back to Dasein! I always saw relativity as a theory about objects relationships rather than time anyhow.

There is also room for an existential rebirth theory in there, if we consider the connection of consciousness as mind-information relationship. Then that via the old-cycle [previous one] ‘historical informations’ could connect to the next interpretation of old info with new. In short the consciousness would connect to the world cyclically and death would be made redundant.
that’s one theory, we could also interpret the info sandwich as meaning that everything we think and have thought, would simply dissipate into the universal set.

_

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Without touching the formulations of the original OP- which still stump me, but just within the last post you gave me, can you isolate the cognitive operators (in mathematics, + - x /), the accepted assume horizons or limits we cap on thoughts before moving on? Your using a form of dialectics here, and I think parts of you are conscious of it, but other parts intercede in continuing the assumption. It's a universalizing dialectics that tries to understands meaning in terms of mind and information.... this is a fool's errand. I don't think even Nietzsche fully grasped this with his cavern theory, we can always give a illusion in dialectics of continuing and sorting towards a end when all we're doing is traveling over the same ground, tracing, growing, dividing and combining old memes. The process itself can become addictive, and it's rejection can at certain locations of the mind in terms of the overall process of dialectics, potentially nihilistic if we realize this at the wrong point of the parasympathetic flow of thinking. The dialectics itself can be quite addictive, especially when the progress only gives the hints of negation of a contradiction or affirment of a spirituality that is altogether illusionary and repetitively neurochemical in terms of baiting.

We can produce our own web of illusions via sunyata in the philosophical process itself- one that seems overly productive. Nietzsche is the poster boy of this. We try to negate our ontology, and it reaffirms itself in new ways. It's because at root, the introspective method resembles the parameters, though expanded, of the dream state, a near totally enclosed system who's main stimuli comes from mnemonic play. Contradictions still occur, but usually glossed over. In our waking life, the contradiction prior to reflection dance amany. There almost never is a monism save when we focus to make it so, and that's dialectic contrivance in and of itself.

The best way forward is the most intuitive and simplest. Accept a contradictory and messed up world, where we are off balance. If you study the means to logic and stability, in a monistic sense, you'll find it's contrived usually, or happens in positions of great calm and beauty. The beauty feeds it. It makes one question what is beautiful, and why despite all the opinion otherwise, we have almost universal assumptions that this and that is beautiful. Stability and calm of assuming a equilibrium of logical stability.... your either in solitaire or fetishism, and in either case missing out on much of the temporal and spacial possibilities of life.

It's okay for life to get a little crazy, for things not to e understood. We must all seek the eclipse of our monoliths if they grow too familiar from time to time. For a city to e free, it must have a little chaos in it, for too orderly means predictable, and that means too easily exploited. Same goes for the mind. Get out there, toss your well formed assumptions to the wind and get a little crazy. Try to see it from a means that's difficult to process, where your old assumptions no longer seem that necessary.... of information, infinite and infinite, or predictable modes of induction and deduction.

[Amorphos]

Hmm well the op is the result of much introspection, and maybe there’s a language problem in the Wittgenstein sense; if a lion could speak English could you understand it? I could be using my own contextual language here, but I had thought the basic idea of two layers of info with objects in between something many would be familiar with ~ in terms of the holographic theory. Though I have I hope created an original way of looking at that, at least if it were a product I’d get a patent on it. New-ish ideas I suppose will always contain something of their own semantic context.

just within the last post you gave me, can you isolate the cognitive operators (in mathematics, + - x /),

I’m not a mathematician and the op is not math, its just philosophically reductive and concise.
Perhaps if you go through one of the arguments in my last post then we can get some way to understand each other.

Sry for being so terrible hermetic, I am kinda going through an isolation stage [even with a family etc]. you’re probably right, I should get out there.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

I’m not a mathematician and the op is not math, its just philosophically reductive and concise.
Perhaps if you go through one of the arguments in my last post then we can get some way to understand each other.

'Mathematics is nothing more, nothing less, than the exact part of our thinking.' Luitzen Brouwer

[Amorphos]

'Mathematics is nothing more, nothing less, than the exact part of our thinking.' Luitzen Brouwer

Wrong; Its metaphorically descriptive and ignores the more fluid state of relationships in the human intellect, ~ and a 1980’s calculator is better at math than a supposed genius.

See my thread here to see the real difference!…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178619

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Ill look at the thread later, still learning this nook tablet. Allegory and metaphor as sub-poetics is none the less quite mathematical, was just writing a response to how a philosopher of the mind assumes it is generated.... its ongoing discussion wise and so dont know quite where it will end..... I may be natively more flexible and inventive than he, but he knew the generic confines of my cognitive style before I was even born, so is quite able to assertain my basis of generating new ideas and hit them in their unconscious roots. So.... yeah, but at root, yes, I say with full certainty its mathematics. We haven't reached the ends of philosophy, its midpoint isnt even beckoning in the horizon. Dont be so quick to denounce or discredit the possibilities of our comprehension of what mathematics is or can be. You'll find some are comprehensive of the dogma, why it is crucial to some, but will not hold to the necessary restrictions, having personally found the underlining means and restrictions laughable. This doesn't undervalue a calculator as a tool or a rational technical creation, but does question the breath of its functions as the mind expands and changes it orientations. At the neurological microtubing level, its all processed similarly, and all the assimilated functions of the mind have a similar biochemical root in evolution in sharing similar architectural roots. Why math would cease to be when novel connections or means are made are beyond my comprehension. If anything, wouldn't increase expontentially in regards to the complexity of every dualistic apprehension of this activity.... every novel feedback loop established? Its from perspectives of specialization itnflounders. The task of every Cynic is to investigate this. Its why we have a tradition of traveling, mixinf introspective and empirical knowledge with sociology and statecraft, a comprehension of biological rythms with its contrast in applications of law and culture.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Ill look at the thread later, still learning this nook tablet. Allegory and metaphor as sub-poetics is none the less quite mathematical, was just writing a response to how a philosopher of the mind assumes it is generated.... its ongoing discussion wise and so dont know quite where it will end..... I may be natively more flexible and inventive than he, but he knew the generic confines of my cognitive style before I was even born, so is quite able to assertain my basis of generating new ideas and hit them in their unconscious roots. So.... yeah, but at root, yes, I say with full certainty its mathematics. We haven't reached the ends of philosophy, its midpoint isnt even beckoning in the horizon. Dont be so quick to denounce or discredit the possibilities of our comprehension of what mathematics is or can be. You'll find some are comprehensive of the dogma, why it is crucial to some, but will not hold to the necessary restrictions, having personally found the underlining means and restrictions laughable. This doesn't undervalue a calculator as a tool or a rational technical creation, but does question the breath of its functions as the mind expands and changes it orientations. At the neurological microtubing level, its all processed similarly, and all the assimilated functions of the mind have a similar biochemical root in evolution in sharing similar architectural roots. Why math would cease to be when novel connections or means are made are beyond my comprehension. If anything, wouldn't increase expontentially in regards to the complexity of every dualistic apprehension of this activity.... every novel feedback loop established? Its from perspectives of specialization itnflounders. The task of every Cynic is to investigate this. Its why we have a tradition of traveling, mixinf introspective and empirical knowledge with sociology and statecraft, a comprehension of biological rythms with its contrast in applications of law and culture.

[FilmSnob]

"Science," that's how many angles.

Here's a joke:

There's a group of people standing around.

One goes "I'm a biologist."

"Biology is basically just applied genetics," goes the genetisist.

"Genetics is just applied chemistry," goes the chemist.

"Chemistry is just applied physics," goes the physicist.

"Physics is just applied Math," goes the mathematician.

"Math is just applied logic," goes the philosopher.

"Logic is just applied instincts," goes the geneticist.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Awe... so Zen.

[Amorphos]

Ill look at the thread later, still learning this nook tablet. Allegory and metaphor as sub-poetics is none the less quite mathematical, was just writing a response to how a philosopher of the mind assumes it is generated.... its ongoing discussion wise and so dont know quite where it will end..... I may be natively more flexible and inventive than he, but he knew the generic confines of my cognitive style before I was even born, so is quite able to assertain my basis of generating new ideas and hit them in their unconscious roots. So.... yeah, but at root, yes, I say with full certainty its mathematics. We haven't reached the ends of philosophy, its midpoint isnt even beckoning in the horizon. Dont be so quick to denounce or discredit the possibilities of our comprehension of what mathematics is or can be. You'll find some are comprehensive of the dogma, why it is crucial to some, but will not hold to the necessary restrictions, having personally found the underlining means and restrictions laughable. This doesn't undervalue a calculator as a tool or a rational technical creation, but does question the breath of its functions as the mind expands and changes it orientations. At the neurological microtubing level, its all processed similarly, and all the assimilated functions of the mind have a similar biochemical root in evolution in sharing similar architectural roots. Why math would cease to be when novel connections or means are made are beyond my comprehension. If anything, wouldn't increase expontentially in regards to the complexity of every dualistic apprehension of this activity.... every novel feedback loop established? Its from perspectives of specialization itnflounders. The task of every Cynic is to investigate this. Its why we have a tradition of traveling, mixinf introspective and empirical knowledge with sociology and statecraft, a comprehension of biological rythms with its contrast in applications of law and culture.

Fair enough! It just seems so frozen, dead, as soon as we make the description what we are describing has changed ~ the world keeps a turning, that’s all. Doesn’t make math or logic wrong or not useful, just for me I like to present something thats moving rather than fixed, it’s a different way of thinking that’s all. All the stuff in the op is irrelevant, one just needs to see what the artist is painting.

"Logic is just applied instincts," goes the geneticist.

Genes provide instincts, environments, situations and imagination give them shape and pattern ~ goes the artist.

_

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Doesnt matter that the artist is painting, nor the aphasia between being and becomming, dialectics of creativity and the analytic approach to consciously expressing the means to a method sumsumed by techniques. What matters is the man is doing, and doing while thinkimg 'I am a artist doing art' and that we passing by, for whatever else we can or care to think, share in this unspoken assumption and agree in a narror range of ettiquette in our approach, discourse, and conversations. It shows how much our social impulse can be turned into a common liquidity in relations to others. The rest..... technique to a means and after product.... were left with the crap made one way or another, if the aesthetics fit so be it, it not, perhaps time will conquer.

[Amorphos]

Perhaps, but if the artist’s painting is describing a scene of trees a river and some hills, then there is at least that obvious narrative even if there are other meanings to be found. In this painting I portray a fundamentally simple theme, one where there is information as one layer of the sandwich, then the filling which describes what kind of sandwich is made, followed by the top layer of bread which is described by the filling [otherwise it could be a pizza or toast etc having only one layer of bread].

If a cup is on a table and you move it, then that action is the instructive information [first layer], the glass affects its environment as it leaves your hand, thence the information is changed [the second layer of information]. Its that simple. Why shouldn’t the artist expect the observer to see that clearly? Perhaps because the other aspects of the painting are or seem confused, but we at least had begun with a basic idea of the image, which we could then proceed to unravel the further meaning. …especially as it concerns something the artist himself has not fully realised ~ though he had done so as concerns the rest of the text [as in the ontologies of the op].

Though I have recently be wondering if the filling or layer of objects in the sandwich are themselves yet another layer of information; after all we can think of info in collocational terms of patterns and shapes which effect other patterns and shapes, such as in terms of DNA ~ the pattern or arrangement of the chemicals determine the nature of the life-form. Chemicals too have patterns as do atoms and sub-atomic particles.

{Perhaps we could also talk about platonic solids and Fibonacci sequencing in terms of fundamental patterns in which the top or base information communicates universally and cyclically ~ to continue upon the original theme on the other thread}

So now we have three layers of info, what makes the filling or middle layer holographic or ‘physical’?

We could also talk about 6th sense experiments which appear to show information e.g. about the 9/11 attacks appearing to be known prior to the actual attack. If the hologram is filled with info or indeed is info, then perhaps the attackers knowledge of their impending attack was somehow inherent in the hologram?

See there are many things we could talk about from a simple painting or image placed in ones mind.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Abtract buns with concrete things as the patty? And each but performs a different operator function in making the concrete thing feel so real? Your explanation for a Cartesian mind body dualism?

[Amorphos]

Abstract buns with concrete things as the patty? And each but performs a different operator function in making the concrete thing feel so real? Your explanation for a Cartesian mind body dualism?

I see it more as cyclic, background info > object [pattern info?] > derived/collocative info >

So the primary set of info informs the object of its original pattern and movement, then collectively objects interact and so the original info is changed [even if god did it lol], and that produces a different set of info derived of the physical interactions.

Then add that all info exists in its own philosophical space - so to say, then the two information sets inform each other = a cycle and an ever-changing pattern relationship communicating.

There is no dualism in this, one thing simply informs and communicates with another, where this occurs in our brains consciousness then exists. It may be so that consciousness also exists in the informational space too, as long as the right conditions for it occur ~ but from what I can tell its the same thing going on.

_

[FilmSnob]

I have to say that I do like the fact that your schematics can make sense whether your underlying assumptions are correct or not.

Could I convince you to give specific examples of how this process works?

[Amorphos]

You may convince me but we are talking in most general terms. I do think that as an alternative to the multi worlds interpretation [MWI], this thesis keeps it all in the one universe. You could also check out the ‘holographic principle’ on wiki.

MWI is described as like a thick sheet of paper which upon every alternative flip of a coin - so to speak, gets spliced in two, so you get parallel universes peeling off this one all the time. However here there would always be communications between information, and between information and objects ~ hence no parallelism may occur and outcomes are determined by information sets [either particular or universal].

[FilmSnob]

I'm a slave to empiricism. Pretty please?

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Cant, its activity being viewed in two seperate hemispheres.... appears disjointed to her because doesnt have conscious access to the information between them. She is a viewer of the changes of each stage.... and it effects the next. This means a default of three receptive lines, one running from each part of the sandwich, as well as full feedback loops from each bun to the patty..... but she cant see these and so is stumped on if there are layers between the layers or not.

We can assume as well, since she has established there is perceiver viewing a perceiver in her mind, coupled with her affinity for constructing rules to control wild behavior that doesnt reach a particular kind of point, as well as her innate capacity to change numerical and phonical comstructions such as 158&%?+ into something that can be rule based...... and her admittance of not being the Berkley origin of though..... it comes into the picture then leaves..... she is the conscious expression of one part of the mind, and one part alone in bi-hemispheric domination of the rest. Can you guess Pezer what part of the mind it is?