^Unless you like quantum-y heavy stuff and esoteric ideas, you might want to skip this post. It’s a short summery and rough-draft of my NOR Theory that I wrote in response to a conversation I was having elsewhere. It’s long, strange and I’m almost not wanting to post it on Facebook. But for the chance that one or two people may want to see it, here it is:
NOR Theory: Kenneth Udut May 9,2014
Part of the problem with humans deciphering the quantum world has to do with how our brains function. This is my theory only, I’ll preface it with, and one I’m currently formulating, so alternative or revisions to this hypothesis are welcomed:
[I’ve spent a year staying up until about 5am trying to figure out “What is everybody *not* seeing?” I’ve been keeping my focus to Wikipedia and diving into scientific journals. The community nature of conflicting biases coming to an acceptable consensus through the power of peers in both cases but different ways is, theoretically, making this method a little more well-rounded – for in the end, no matter how many numbers, ‘facts’ are opinions waiting to be disproven – any scientist knows that – a staple of the scientific method]
In our brains, there is a rejection of incoming stimuli – shows as a slight downward spike in brain scans, – just before acceptance. In a sense, there is always a “no” just before a “yes”.
The “No” is biologically different in each individual. And by acceptance, I don’t mean that it’s necessarily “answering Yes”. It’s akin to a snail recoiling and going “eww, no you’re touching me” before it goes, “Ok, I’ll process this new stimuli.”
Every piece of new stimuli is rejected before acceptance. And, depending on the way the brain of the individual works, there is different levels of recoil.
In this moment of recoil a comparison is begun. My theory is that it is the technically the same as NAND or NOR gates in computers but what it is NOR ing (I prefer NOR because it is functionally simpler) is the anticipatory or expectation or prejudice or prediction (the “No!”) is the moment of reception where outside stimuli – which could come internally as well through feedback loops – finishing its initial journey to the inside of the brain for the first time.
it is analogous to jumping on a trampoline and the trampoline stretching before catapulting upwards the received stimululs through the brain and doing a massive set of simultaneous NOR comparisons.
What is interesting about NOR that it (along with NAND) can be used to build any binary logic question.
And in a basic NOR, the only answer that leads to TRUE is when all things being compared are 0. Clear. No conflict.
In psychology this would be similar to cognitive dissonance. What one experiences in the world does not match up with their expectations.
If this was the visual system, the reason some people can see a stain on a shirt, or hear a note that is slightly out of tune, or however their brains are most interested in comparing, is because there is an expectation in the brain of what is ABOUT to happen which is compared to what DOES happen. And this process happens continuously. Not just in human brains but in all nervous systems, at least down to the Sponge, which apparently has none – but I believe also is a fundamental aspect of reception-expectation-comparison-rejection-acceptance-inbetween throughout all physical things – even to quantum zoom level of ‘particle’ charges. -o+ plus minus and the inbetween part.
But that’s zooming too deeply at the moment.
How is this relatable? We are constantly trying to predict.
We have a built-in-predudice or expectation or anticipation of future outcome..
This anticipation is compared with what we see. If what we see is what we expect to see, then things are smooth and we often don’t even notice it.. such as our visual system notices a scene but does not have any particular focal point so long as everything is exactly where we EXPECT them to be.
This bias is perfectly natural and comfortable. It colors our perspective of the world.
In my mind, science and religion are variations of the same thing.
This could get me burned at the stake from both camps.
They are each mystery religions. At the center of each is a Great ?
From all angles this great Question Mark is studied and many declare “I have the answer!” and people follow. Or they declare “The answer is unknowable”. Or they declare “It will take generations of revisions of past answers to come up with more accurate answers and stand on the shoulders of giants until Everything can be explained by Numbers. (science/mathematics as a combination of Aristotlian Logic/Pythagoras).
What I enjoy about the reality of quantum things is it messes up the Aristotle logic embedded in Scienctific assumptions about Reality and messes up our dependance upon the idea that two things can be alike to even compare with each other.
The “atom” (Greek sense of individual unit) keeps shrinking the more we look.
But in the end, these are all humans telling stories.
Stories are designed to convince OTHER HUMANS that certain things are TRUE or FALSE.
Stories utilize cultural assumptions (science is a culture, religion is a culture, which is typically expressed in a shared langauge with shared meaning) to assist other humans into Agreement.
Resolve all conflict in the listeners brain until their mind mirrors your own. Not perfectly of course, but at least enough so that each feels “We are of one mind on this issue”.
I’m doing it now.
I’m weaving a tale involving digital circuity as being analogous to brain spikes as being analogous to cognative dissonence as being analogous to human groups gathering around a great question mark trying to each come to agreement. I am invoking authority (I have spent the past year), speaking outside the boundaries of the coversation (which makes me appear smarter or kookier, depending on your take – but something that is often interpreted as “wow this guy must know, he certainly is smart about this other thing” or “He is so crazy he might just be right” prejudice.
And for what?
In the expectation that, after ALL OF THIS, you will say in one way shape or form, “What you say is true.”
If accepted, in whatever parts are accepted, it leads to “confirmation bias” which bolsters my prejudice that ‘Yes, I am right”, leading to further confidences that “feel” like truth.
And the feeling of “I am right” – is the feeling that comes from the (inner NOR outer) = 0.
Or when there is agreement and no conflict.
And, as a human being, with my system of predudices/assumptions/expectations/predictions of “what I think will happen”, it is a nice feeling, increasing a wash of happy chemicals in the brain.
Unless it was disagreement I was seeking and upon receiving that, I get the same effect of expectations and reality matching up.
I’ve seen mention of David Bohm while I was doing the heavy researching – I think he was the holographic mind, yes? And I’ve seen the 8 circuit model although while I was doing the research I tried very hard – and it IS very hard – to stay away from other people’s “theory of everything” ideas and sticking to some of the common problems that we keep running into over and over and over again, simply for being humans with limitations and trying to figure out what is the nature of these roadblocks.
Very hard to do – I’d find myself reading an Everything theory and starting to nod my head a lot… and then find myself getting pulled in, until it started conflicting with some of the ideas I’d come up with and was pretty certain about. They’re definitely on my to-read list though!
I will put Bohm on my shorter list of people to get to as the holographic brain *does* somewhat fit into my way of thinking. If nothing else, for massive information storage in a small space and the redundancy built into the brain it is quite interesting.
I will put it on my reading list as well – looks like a work of fiction and its hard science fiction – which is the kind of science fiction I like (and I haven’t read any fiction in quite a while) so when I’m ready to dive in to some fiction again, I will check it out!
Thanks! I know I was kind of all over the place but it was something I wrote quickly during a discussion I’m having with a friend over on Google+. It’s actually a discussion about the roots of modern thought as it relates to our connection to ancient Greece. The guy knows way more than me so I’m having a great time with it as he’s filling in some of the details I didn’t have or that I had forgotten.
That’s awesome! I don’t usually write in this style – which is pretty close I think – So I am never sure if it is scattered or makes sense. Thank you – your interest In pursuing these things on your own in your own way, boosts my confidence in a very big way. I have to watch for confirmation bias in myself – That agreement does not always = the truth. But what I love, is you just don’t necessarily agree but rather that your curiosity is peaked. That means at some point in the future you may prove me wrong or right or neither or both. Thank you for feeding the happy chemicals in my brain And whenever it comes up, please share what you have discovered or are thinking about.
bathrooms are often the best thinking spots! I’m actually honored you shared that because, I know that sometimes, that is the only place when you’re out in public, to get a few minutes of peace and quiet to do some thinking in for a few minutes!
Thank you Oh I could write and write about it – I have a lot to say – I just had no idea what my audience would be, as I know this kind of stuff isn’t for everybody. Getting a positive response like this is encouraging; if I know my target audience and how to get a hold of them, then I would have a better idea how to put collect all the ideas together and put it into a book or something Right now, they’re just scattered notes in notebooks, or in various online posts, or stuff on my iPhone.
- I will definitely check it out; I think putting difficult concepts in a fiction or even a figurative form (it has a special name – sollogism? gosh I don’t even remember There’s special names for everything) – or parable form – is also another way to present information in a form that is more enjoyable and tastier.
Ah! you summed it up beautifully in a sentence: “We have to process the information and we can’t process information and accept it at the same time”
It’s a slight resistance to change – like the resistance felt when hitting a slight barrier to “catch” it so it can be processed and then sent to the proper place.
It would be like hmm.. the slight heat generated at a junction box where you have a light switch for example and multiple electrical inputs meet.
Or.. a y-pipe in plumbing where two streams of water come together and there is a slight change of direction of the flow. That puts a slight outward or inward pressure on the Y connector itself and the flow itself slows ever so slightly as it changes direction.
Or – here’s one from human experience: eating. So much can be analogized to eating;
when you first wake up in the morning, haven’t you noticed the very first thing that you put in your mouth, whether it be coffee or food or toothpaste or mouthwash or water… you get an EVER so slight, “yuck” sensation? You learn by habit to ignore it and carry on but that sudden change of environment causes a rejection of that new stimulus before accepting.
Or you turn on a hose. The hose has a slight kink in it. But the water pressure is high. When the water hits the “kink” – if there the kink in the hose isn’t so bad, the pressure of the water opens up the kink in the hose and the water can then flow.
But for just a moment, there is a pause as the water changes direction ad purpose as it were, as it stops flowing and starts pushing a barrier and actually changing its environment AROUND it to create a better flow for itself.
It’s all physics – and actually, I think a lot of what happens in the brain *is* all physics. BUT with a TWIST: that we are the EXPERIENCE of the water going down the hose as well as the empty hose AND the hose itself continually being unkinked or kinked… as well as the air exiting the hose as the water pushing it down, and the sensation of the flow of the entire hose… all at the same time.
Example: Visual information: data flows into the eye in the form of a stream of photons. Now its not our whole visual field – but perhaps a pencil’s width that we continually scan the world with quickly to paint a picture of reality.
(that’s why cameras can’t see as big as we do – they don’t “saccade or seccade or whatever the word -is – I’d just call it scanning)
It goes into the eye, hits the retina, gets split into colors and shades and flows down the optic nerve into a big ball of FAT in the middle of our heads.
But then: The nerve stops.
The photons being passed by the electrons like basketballs at a basketball game suddenly don’t know where the heck to throw the ball next.
Where in this big ball of fat can we go now?
Thankfully, we have several places to go at that point. an “outline view” of the world which works VERY quickly ties ito our quick response system – allows for fast reaction time, sees in 3D outlines, feeds our quick fight or flight response mechanism.
Then we have the other part of vision, the prettifier – which sticks in all the nice colors and shades and paints a beautiful picture of what’s in front of us.
But then there’s context – what the heck are we seeing? and in our brains is a compressed memory – a simplified stereotype of what to expect out there and, patterns of the new are matched with the old – for speed’s sake because we don’t usually have the time to process everything as “brand new”, although we *could* (see the guy who lost his short term memory – it’s always new to him – 6 seconds of living at a time… without the benefit of having anywhere for the new information to go. so he remembers nothing new… ever… worst amnesia case known – he ONLY knows what he already knows)
and all of these things and others, meet at various junction boxes in the brain – causing an ever so slight lag… a slowdown – a resistance – a small “no” before the acceptance… and.. its measurable. Even noticeable right as its happening sometimes. Pretty amazing stuff.
may just do that. I’ve got plenty of experience; I used to run mailing lists; first one was in 1990 – any time I was interested in a topic, I would gather a bunch of people together and get them all talking about it and I would listen and put my two cents in.
First one on the rights of kids/teens – I was 18 yrs old – got up to 3000 members back when even AOL didn’t exist yet. Then one where I gathered ministers of different faiths together because I wanted to know the ins and outs of being a minister – ’cause I was thinking of it as a profession – and every faith from Southern Baptist to Alaskan native pagan earth religion had the same tasks, the same ideas, the same goals in mind.. and the same issues. That got about 5000 ministers and those interested in ministry – passed that group on to a southern baptist and an alaskan pagan – who bitterly debated theology but I made them take it to private – but they both understood the same ecumenical goal I had in mind and were excellent leaders and made a great unlikely partnership. I should find them again…
Email made the whole thing easy -and really, it’s before www existed so its all we had.
And I had run a bunch of groups on yahoo later on… but then as social networks started coming in, I started a game so to speak of “How many people will be my friend – but not just as a “follower” or “contact” but someone who actually knows *me* at some level as someone who cares about them. I use the word game in a serious way; it work that is like play to me – ie a game. I put my all into getting to know people and connecting.them with each other.
Newer social media has its benefits and drawbacks; it’s great for connecting people to people, but similar discussions are often scattered to and fro – and long-winded writers like myself find it tricky to ‘fit’ lots of writing into small spaces. Thankfully facebook improved in that regard. Yes, I may just do that. I have no idea what I’d call it or what it would be about exactly though.
Categorizing ideas is always a weak point with me.