That is, indeed, one of the things that inspired me long ago to find this out. I have a very architectural set of dreams — many buildings wiht many floors and rooms inside and places, all elaborate. What gives them structure within dreams? I know it would be the same as what gives them structure from vision as it’s the same internal mechanisms… but something has to tie together room to room to room to room and keep them distinct as well. I think this is the part, so I’m really happy.

That is, indeed, one
[read full article]

So, under the OCLC classification demo, “Reflection (Philosophy)” has four categories: ONE: “Reflection (Philosophy)–Mathematical models” Mathematical? What book? “The Structure of human reflexion : the reflexional psychology of Vladimir Lefebvre”. Who is Vladimir Lefebrvre? Cyberneticist but not just any. His was THE THEORY that was used in negotiations between the Soviet Union and the West that led to the final end of the Soviet Union as it was in the 1980s. It was used by BOTH the US and USSR to prevent misunderstandings between two VERY different worldviews. And it worked. I don’t know how much it’s been used since. Loosely, it’s the Russian equivalent to “Game Theory” but it goes deeper than game theory does as it’s about self-awareness of one’s own perspective, a difficult task for anybody.

So, under the OCLC
[read full article]

My brain chatter never ends and I’ve always had (and am comfortable with) auditory hallucination. Also, my genetics stuff puts me in that ‘zone’. But also, I exhibit many autistic characteristics and people with aspergers often claim me. The imprinted brain theory posits a father/mother split between autism and schizophrenia, which reminds me of the “autism = extreme male, schizophrenia=extreme female” notions. But probably because I’ve always sort of seen myself as an “i-don’t-care much” when it comes to my gender — always what’d probably be considered a ‘mixture’, the notion of a teeter-totter autism vs schizophrenia doesn’t compute with my head.

My brain chatter never
[read full article]

Its non monotonic. Its equivalent to “if/then else” and it ties to lattice theory as greatest lower bound (which is the lowest you can go that includes all the things) I knew it and yet it ties together more deeply than I thought before and didn’t know it as well as I did. “An operand of a conjunction is a conjunct. Beyond logic, the term “conjunction” also refers to similar concepts in other fields: In natural language, the coordinating conjunction “and”. In programming languages, the short-circuit and control structure. In set theory, intersection. In lattice theory, logical conjunction (greatest lower bound). In predicate logic, universal quantification”

Its non monotonic. Its … [read full article]


YES! SOMEBODY DID THIS PART. Good. First stage According to Semonovich (2002) and Archipov et al. (2010) the protopathic (sensing pain, pressure, heat, or cold in a nonspecific manner, usually without localizing the stimulus) and epicritic (accurate determination of the stimulus via cutaneous nerve fibres sensitive to fine variations of touch or temperature) sensitivity is formed during the first stage of space learning. The proprioceptive system (called “dark muscle sense” by Sechenov, 1947) plays a dominant role at this stage. Archipov et al. (2010) argue that protopathic sensitivity is basic for self-perception and that depersonalisation disorders are mostly due to this type of sensitivity disorders. Low protopathic sensitivity makes the perception of the body in space defective, thus the child needs to keep moving, exciting the surface sensitivity to locate and feel himself. This behaviour has often been diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). According to Landau and Jackendoff’s (1993) model, at this stage of space perception, the body can be characterised as a container with no axial structure. As such, the internal body space can be described as the frame of reference, while the sense of (dis)comfort and the affective tone can be described as the object to be located. Second stage Semenovich (2002) labels this stage somatognosis. In this stage, the infant adds a new spatial knowledge through the contact of the whole body with the external word. According to Landau and Jackendoff’s (1993) model, at this stage the body can be described as a container but also as a reference frame that possesses a surface and is bounded. Third and fourth stage Semenovich (2002) argues that during the third stage metric and topological representations are formed and that during the fourth stage coordinate representations occur. The third stage is characterised by limited spatial interactions with any object in a specific relationship to the body. Specifically, while proximal space becomes familiar by using touch and manipulation with hands and mouth, distal space becomes familiar thanks to visual exploration. Paillard (1991) describes in detail the plurality of sensorimotor action-spaces, or “sensorimotor dialogues”, between the whole body and specific body parts as eyes, head, hands, etc. Stage four, or the system of coordinates, develops in the course of lying, sitting, crawling, standing, etc. Thus, the postural development of the child at the intrauterine position is 0°, 45° at the time of birth, 90° at the stage of sitting and crawling, 180° from the moment of transition to upright posture, and finally 360° after mastering space to the rear (Semenovich, 2002). This postural space co-ordinate system is anchored to the invariant direction of gravity forces through the powerful mechanisms of maintaining an upright body posture (Paillard, 1991). According to Landau and Jackendoff’s (1993) model, the coordinate system (the “where” system) requires an axial structure, i.e., it requires a “detailed geometry” (p. 227). Fifth, sixth and seventh stage These stages cover the verbalization of spatial concepts. Stage 5 represents the formation of structural and topological concepts; stage 6 represents the verbal designation of conceptual space and which allows abstract manipulation; and stage 7 is when the cognitive style of the individual begins to emerge and is shaped by the interaction between the internal and external space. Thus, Semenovich (2002) generalises that the internalisation of space (and time) is a situation in which the child is able to understand and express its propioceptive system in a verbal way. The spatial concepts according to his model, reach the highest level of development when they become mediated not only by the right but also by the left (subdominant for space) hemisphere. Moreover, the development of spatial concepts is not only mediated by inter-hemispheric communication, but also by cortical-subcortical communication. Iossifova, R., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2012). Spatial and temporal deixis. The role of age and vision in the ontogeny of a child’s spatial and temporal cognition. Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 2(2), 75–98.

[read full article]