Metaphor is ‘well-formed abstraction’, and not all abstraction is well-formed. Consider metaphor refers to a specific subset of abstraction, such that while all metaphors are abstractions, not all abstractions are metaphors. the metaphor subset of abstraction is subject to increased constraints on membership: the space-of-all metaphor is smaller than the space-of-all abstraction Consider that, what we commonly call a metaphor, is often another special-domain instance of the metaphor – and that what we mean when we use a metaphor, is always the bits which are common between, and never the bits which are uncommon between....

notes: on cognition and computation; conceptual accessibility; and a formal approach to metaphorical analysis 1 metaphor too much time and effort is spent arguing the merits and pitfalls of individual metaphors, when the root cause – a failure to adequately define and formalise ‘metaphorical-analysis’ – remains unaddressed Undoubtedly, metaphor is innate to human experience, and cognition. ‘There is something that it is’ to intuitively perceive and consider universal phenomena by metaphor – to consider one kind of universal phenomenon in terms of the characteristics of another almost-entirely different kind of phenomenon 2....

introduction This sequence of ’toot-sized digests’ (eventually), compares the accessibility of science-writing and software, using a generalised method/ process/ system (?) for thinking across distinct conceptual domains; which began as a set of principled assertions and intuitions for illuminating and reasoning around/ about anomalous phenomena (originally conceived and developed for this #project) skip to: {#results; #analysis; #discussion} occasion An online conversation about the frustrating inaccessibility of the language and writing of some scientific papers; which began here (with @ngaylinn); included a variety of interpretations of the problem-space (multi-disciplinary ?...

we routinely speak past each other, using different words for the same things, and the same words, for different things While physical movement shapes circumstances by direct manipulation; language influences circumstances by proxy, albeit only when interpreted 1. Language is a (lossy) knowledge synchronisation protocol Knowledge is a (high-dimensional) relational, representational graph (of sensory conditions, and derived forms) which:- Cannot be synchronised directly (by natural means) Is the evaluable artefact (state), of embodied sensory {cognitive; interpretive} operation(s) (processes), which equates to {cognitive; interpretive, and; behavioural} conditionality We use language to externally synchronise (and validate) accrued knowledge; to communicate Communication is linear (words are a linear sequence of letters; phrases and sentences are a linear sequence of words, etc), and as such to communicate knowledge (whether by speaking or writing, in words, phrases or sentences), knowledge must be serialised (into language) Language:- serialisation includes two several dimensions {encoding; expression} (in practice, expressions become composite encodings) #tbc this will be updated to refer to conceptual-domain and layers of communication-domain Deserialisation is dependent upon knowledge {high-dimensional graph; embedding; etc}, for interpreting, and decoding Language is inherently ambiguous, because:- The same letters apply to arbitrarily-many words The same words apply to arbitrarily-many sentences The same words and sentences apply to arbitrarily-many situations every legal sequence of letters, words and sentences, might mean different things in different situations, and as such, must be interpreted contextually 2 Serialisation equates to isolating, ordering and sequencing nodes and node-relationships, of an unordered, arbitrarily associated, and (generally) continuable, graph A graph segment 3 is a operationally isolated selection/ scope of nodes and node-relations 4 The process and result of isolating a graph segment is somewhat dependent upon pre-exiting representation, within active and possible contexts of interpretation Any non-trivial graph segment is plurally enumerable (more than one possible sequence); might serialise to arbitrarily many distinct ordered sequences, of expression Plural enumeration -> plural sequential expressions?...

The following description suggests a distant evolutionary origin for psychological phenomena which align with those of modern human burnout and depression. Specifically, attention is drawn to three neuronal mechanisms: two of which equate to operational implementations of basic (observable) predatory threat avoidance in physical environments; and one, which relates to consequences of evaluating mixed situational circumstances, which include both pleasing and displeasing phenomena, however individually unrelated. For an overview, consider that humans conceptually model all universal phenomena (whether tangible or intangible, physical or interpreted) with the same selected-for cognitive neuronal implementation evolved to intuit and counter predatory threats in physical environments; physical environments then survived by long distant evolutionary ancestors....

arise Throughout life, moments arise, whereby our circumstances change, and the way in which we previously made sense of our own mind (or the minds of others), is no longer sufficient. In those moments, some of our most intimate observations, of our own, or others, experiential or cognitive circumstances, are left uninterpreted –are uninterpretable; and, as a consequence, minds, whether ours or others, in whole, or in part, no longer make sense to us....

in logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements Present and sufficient refers to circumstances whereby some part or aspect of a complex phenomena, like humans, is accountable in terms of some (obvious or non-obvious) part or aspect of a less complex phenomena, say simpler animals, or even fundamental concerns of biology, chemistry, or physics. Examples: On depression and burnout #tbc

russell’s paradox is paradoxical – but not in that way overview Russell’s paradox is held as an example of why set-theoretic sets cannot not contain themselves – the paradox depends upon a set, which is the result of a specifically crafted predicate, containing itself, in violation of respective predicate constraints. #todo plainly describe Russell’s paradox However fun and engaging russell’s paradox is – by the time the specifically crafted predicate enters the scene (of russell’s example), a more fundamental paradox (of a set containing itself) has already occurred....

ours is a coherent universe —what does that mean? I mean coherent in the colloquial sense: consistent throughout; plurally concordant; joined-up, aligned. In our universe, things happen for a reason. We may not always know what that reason is – but there is always one, just waiting to be found. Consider : That event B, happens for a reason, A That reason A, is also an event (and one which occurred earlier in time that event B), and That events A, B, relate to one another – A caused B We might then say : That event B, exists within the space-of-all potential (possible futures) of event A (Or observe retrospectively) that event A Exists within the space-of-all priors, of event B Satisfies the space-of-necessary priors, for event B, to occur That event A, was sufficient to cause event B That event A, necessarily caused event B However described, universal events relate in specific ways, which when taken together, align every single event throughout the history of our universe, to a coherent whole: consistent throughout; plurally concordant; joined-up, aligned....

the gist The improbable yet elementary case: describes several mutually-consistent mathematical accounts of the way in which (arbitrarily any) universal phenomena relate to one another (across arbitrary scopes/ domains of concern) – and builds to simple, inescapable, albeit counter-intuitive, #conclusions. The following is an attempt to describe the case in prose, and is taken from a mastodon thread with @[email protected]. map territory —have you ever considered the difference between: 1. a ’theory of everything’, and 2....

trace: alignment > phenomenal composition > phenomenal structure > phenomenal behaviour

trace: alignment > phenomenal composition > phenomenal structure

phenomenal trace refers to accounting for isolated phenomenal characteristics by compositional and causal priors, either as: retrospective deconstruction (to determine phenomenal origin), or; projection (to define or explore potential)

Phenomenal trace refers to accounting for isolated phenomenal characteristics by compositional and causal priors, either as: retrospective deconstruction (to determine phenomenal origin), or; projection (to define or explore potential) Biological cells evolve. We commonly consider cellular evolution in terms of evolution by natural selection. Biology and evolution by natural selection are both dependant upon prior circumstances "—1. how might we explain evolution by natural selection in pre-biological terms?" Immediate ancestral phenomenal scope is (mapped by) chemistry “—2....

defining the system signal distinction All phenomenal behaviour is conditional, and dependant upon extrinsic circumstances. If one biological system A, becomes coupled to another B, by influence of some side-effect or waste-product of A, we might observe ‘some behaviour of B is conditional to influence by signal from A’, or interpret that ‘A signals B’ Over time additional conditionality may evolve, such that the same behaviour of B becomes conditional to ’two signals’: separately; or coupled (say a different molecule)....

Constraints describe conditions of {conditional, or; unconditional} discontinuation, relative to any (structural, or behavioural) possibility-space: Interpreted constraints – describe contrived conditional limitations, which artificially segment respective possibility-space 1 Innate constraints – describe conditions of phenomenal boundary, which demarcate respective possibility-space, to exclude relative impossibility-space 2 Related: Structural constraint prototype [&F on constraint structure behaviour]] {Map; violable; infinite; contextually restrictive} ↩︎ {Territory; inviolable; finite; contextually permissive} ↩︎

introduction The overarching theme of this project is alignment, – which described plainly, refers to several ways in which (arbitrarily any) universal phenomena relate to one another, across arbitrarily any scope of concerns 1. Constraint structure behaviour General special Composition Map territory Geometry graph set Phenomenal trace Tiling We evolved to interpret and represent universal phenomena and phenomenal alignment in several distinct-though-related ways Here we focus on constraint, structure, behaviour...

Default assumptions were a twinkle in Claude Bernard’s eye while he pondered “things we know already, preventing us from learning” Default assumptions are the epitome of perceptive distortion around representational negative-space, whereby we no longer notice that here is even a place to look. Default assumptions are the rock under which anomalies, like anemones, hide. 🙂