‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 > 
 
   
 

The Trouble With Trioonity

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
03 April 2018 01:36
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 April 2018 05:04 PM

Mr. Hippo is the good driver and the touch typist. Mr. Flashlight (that’s “me”) is Mr. Hippo’s micromanaging boss who can’t keep from doing Mr. Hippo’s job for him, poorly, whenever the stakes are high. Mr. Hippo perceives everything directly; Mr. Flashlight perceives everything indirectly, second-hand. The best he can do is construct a model of reality that includes not only sensory inputs, but expectations, biases and beliefs.

I have to admit that in term of pure ladology, this is spot on. The lads were all about identities and outward personalities. I associated the lads with the perception system that makes them possible. If I now cast trioon as perceptual machinery, then that casts the lads in a different light. I could spoil a cult classic that way. I should leave them be.

If taken too far, they lose sight of the gears that spawned them. And lose sight of our cinematic mid-perception. And then it becomes a sort of Punch and Judy in our heads compared to what I have in mind. So maybe a reboot for the lads is in order.

The problem I have with what I hear coming back from lad users is the undifferentiated machine being described. It’s a three (or two) layered sandwich and all the layers are bread from the same loaf. To make that truly trioon, the first piece of bread would be the size of a coin, the second the size of a house and the third the size of Jupiter. That complicates how much peanut butter they can share.

Pitching Mr. Flashlight as Hippo’s micromanaging boss tells the tale correctly but does not describe their counter-part perceptual systems’ actions. Mr. Flashlight is in a sense doing hippo’s job badly but technically, it is only a matter of hippo being perceptually hobbled by being denied EYEBALL steering by cinematic perception. Vision will be steered consciously until a cue is spotted, aimed at and the steering wheel is passed back to hippo to perform the actual engineering.

On the other hand, maybe I have something going on that prevents me from recognizing Mr. Now. Or maybe Mr. Now is superfluous for the purposes of sports psychology, which is where my interest in consciousness comes from. Because it seems like I can explain all my perception and behavior and awareness/non-awareness without him.

Mr. Now can be an illusory but vital component in ladology. As a specific state of lad-ness, he appears more often then one might expect even if only for a piece of a second at a time. Mr. Now is ‘you’ when post-cinema perception is not operating and cinema perception is running unmolested. It is a consciousness of elapsing sights and sounds. It is an unnarrated and direct sensation. To be engaged or transported while watching a film (not thinking about it) or reading is a state of 100% Mr. Now-ness. It is unmanipualted cinematic perception.

Mr. Flashlight is you when post-cinema perception is manipulating cinematic perception from a seemingly static and separate perch. Many consider this as being awake. Mr. Now’s machinery is hijacked and he becomes Mr. Flashlight.

There is an extra bonus state where the same exact hijacking occurs but by an unconscious auto-narrator that takes the role of Mr. Flashlight but leaves ‘you’ in a state of Mr. Now-ness. This is infrequent but routine for forum-posting flashlight types. For those not trained in critical thinking skills, it is being awake. Each day is a parade of auto-narrators. Being coaxed or prompted into a state of Mr. Flashlight (your ‘you’) quickly leads to exhaustion, frustration and anger.

I wouldly thus agree that this is a picture of just two layers or what could be called ‘bioonity’. Trioon means that the upper layer can be manipulated by an additional perceptual function. Creatures without this feature would be strictly cinematic second-layer-wise, hence bioon. While this is a intellectual inhibition compared to us, they can have chunk limits greater than ours and perform astonishing feats of single-step reasoning.

I have followed (classic meaning) your model idea for a long time. Turning it sideways seems like a path to same-pageness. Next round.

Plugging the eyeholes is an interesting example of the mechanics. Who needs the eyehole plugged? Not Mr. Hippo.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
03 April 2018 12:23
 
Nhoj Morley - 03 April 2018 01:36 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 April 2018 05:04 PM

Mr. Hippo is the good driver and the touch typist. Mr. Flashlight (that’s “me”) is Mr. Hippo’s micromanaging boss who can’t keep from doing Mr. Hippo’s job for him, poorly, whenever the stakes are high. Mr. Hippo perceives everything directly; Mr. Flashlight perceives everything indirectly, second-hand. The best he can do is construct a model of reality that includes not only sensory inputs, but expectations, biases and beliefs.

I have to admit that in term of pure ladology, this is spot on. The lads were all about identities and outward personalities. I associated the lads with the perception system that makes them possible. If I now cast trioon as perceptual machinery, then that casts the lads in a different light. I could spoil a cult classic that way. I should leave them be.

If taken too far, they lose sight of the gears that spawned them. And lose sight of our cinematic mid-perception. And then it becomes a sort of Punch and Judy in our heads compared to what I have in mind. So maybe a reboot for the lads is in order.

The problem I have with what I hear coming back from lad users is the undifferentiated machine being described. It’s a three (or two) layered sandwich and all the layers are bread from the same loaf. To make that truly trioon, the first piece of bread would be the size of a coin, the second the size of a house and the third the size of Jupiter. That complicates how much peanut butter they can share.

Pitching Mr. Flashlight as Hippo’s micromanaging boss tells the tale correctly but does not describe their counter-part perceptual systems’ actions. Mr. Flashlight is in a sense doing hippo’s job badly but technically, it is only a matter of hippo being perceptually hobbled by being denied EYEBALL steering by cinematic perception. Vision will be steered consciously until a cue is spotted, aimed at and the steering wheel is passed back to hippo to perform the actual engineering.

An interesting tidbit that may or may not be relevant: A while back, some researchers looked at the effect of fixing one’s gaze on a specific point while executing a task. They designed a “hat” with a camera calibrated to the wearer’s eyeballs that allowed them to track exactly what the wearer was looking at. What they found is that top athletes fix their gaze on a specific point for half a second before the task is executed. For example, a pro basketball player shooting a free throw might fix his gaze on the lip of the rim prior to shooting. The researchers, who published a book called The Quiet Eye, determined that a shift in gaze is always accompanied by a change of attention, and that this change of attention negatively impacts execution of the task.

Nhoj Morley - 03 April 2018 01:36 AM

On the other hand, maybe I have something going on that prevents me from recognizing Mr. Now. Or maybe Mr. Now is superfluous for the purposes of sports psychology, which is where my interest in consciousness comes from. Because it seems like I can explain all my perception and behavior and awareness/non-awareness without him.

Mr. Now can be an illusory but vital component in ladology. As a specific state of lad-ness, he appears more often then one might expect even if only for a piece of a second at a time. Mr. Now is ‘you’ when post-cinema perception is not operating and cinema perception is running unmolested. It is a consciousness of elapsing sights and sounds. It is an unnarrated and direct sensation. To be engaged or transported while watching a film (not thinking about it) or reading is a state of 100% Mr. Now-ness. It is unmanipualted cinematic perception.

Mr. Flashlight is you when post-cinema perception is manipulating cinematic perception from a seemingly static and separate perch. Many consider this as being awake. Mr. Now’s machinery is hijacked and he becomes Mr. Flashlight.

There is an extra bonus state where the same exact hijacking occurs but by an unconscious auto-narrator that takes the role of Mr. Flashlight but leaves ‘you’ in a state of Mr. Now-ness. This is infrequent but routine for forum-posting flashlight types. For those not trained in critical thinking skills, it is being awake. Each day is a parade of auto-narrators. Being coaxed or prompted into a state of Mr. Flashlight (your ‘you’) quickly leads to exhaustion, frustration and anger.

I wouldly thus agree that this is a picture of just two layers or what could be called ‘bioonity’. Trioon means that the upper layer can be manipulated by an additional perceptual function. Creatures without this feature would be strictly cinematic second-layer-wise, hence bioon. While this is a intellectual inhibition compared to us, they can have chunk limits greater than ours and perform astonishing feats of single-step reasoning.

I have followed (classic meaning) your model idea for a long time. Turning it sideways seems like a path to same-pageness. Next round.

Plugging the eyeholes is an interesting example of the mechanics. Who needs the eyehole plugged? Not Mr. Hippo.

It seems like we’re pretty much in agreement about Mr. Hippo. There appears to be a one-to-one correlation between him and what the sports psychologists call the “subconscious.” The gears behind Mr. Hippo are the synaptic connections between neurons involved with a particular skill: the connection between neurons that recognize the letter, “A” and the neurons that control the muscles in the fingers and hands. Those synaptic connections are created by repetition: “cells that fire together, wire together.” Practice makes perfect. The more you practice, the stronger the synaptic connections become.

A few other things about Mr. Hippo. He can execute a virtually unlimited number of tasks simultaneously. Neither Mr. Flashlight nor, possibly, if he exists, Mr. Now, need be aware of what Mr. Hippo is doing in order for Mr. Hippo to do it. Said another way, Mr. Hippo doesn’t need the model of reality that constitutes Mr. Flashlight’s entire world view. Mr. Flashlight is, for the most part, unaware of what Mr. Hippo is doing while he’s doing it. Mr. Flashlight knows that Mr. Hippo must have driven to work because here’s Mr. Flashlight at work. But during the drive, Mr. Flashlight was occupied with things other than driving. (Except for those moments when something unexpected happened—the police lights in the rearview mirror, for example.) And, to borrow a phrase from Nagel, there is nothing that it is like to be Mr. Hippo.

I think we agree more than disagree about Mr. Flashlight, who seems to be pretty much what the sports psychologists call the “conscious.” The gear behind Mr. Flashlight is probably the prefrontal cortex, which is the most connected part of our brain, and one of the most recent additions to it evolution-wise. Unlike Mr. Hippo, Mr. Flashlight tends to be a terrible multi-tasker. He’s also got a mind of his own, like a disobedient dog who’s constantly running off on his own. And there is something that it is like to be Mr. Flashlight: it’s exactly like being you.

The difference between Mr. Hippo and Mr. Flashlight is easy to “see.” It’s the difference between non-awareness and awareness.

There’s also a clear difference between recalling a thing and looking at it or listening to it or smelling it. I think this is where Mr. Now creeps in. Mr. Now seems to perceive reality directly, like Mr. Hippo, but somehow “you” are aware of Mr. Now, or at least what he’s perceiving. Is that more or less correct?

My position is that while it may seem like Mr. Now is perceiving reality directly, he’s actually not. Yes, the image of whatever you’re looking at is far more realistic than Mr. Flashlight’s recalled image of the same thing. It seems reasonable to assume that the recalled image is the model of reality and the viewed image is reality perceived directly. But we know it can’t be direct perception because of the optic nerve blind spot test. Yes, the room looks realistic when you cover one eye and look around, but where’s the blind spot? The blind spot exists in reality, but not in the model. Therefore, the conclusion I draw is that even when we’re looking at something, we’re still not seeing anything but a very realistic version of the model. Which belongs to Mr. Flashlight.

The state you ascribe to Mr. Now, of cinema perception running unmolested, is what the sports psychologists call the state of “flow,” or the state of being in “the zone.” But even in the zone, we know (from the optic nerve blind spot test) that “we,” whether that means Mr. Now or Mr. Flashlight, cannot be perceiving reality directly. Our awareness is restricted to the model. The narration is gone, but that’s just a matter of getting Mr. Flashlight to shut up for a change. Mr. Hippo is executing the task while Mr. Flashlight watches the post-cinematic (post by half a second) model of it happening. In other words, cinematic perception doesn’t exist, only the illusion of cinematic perception. In reality, everything we’re aware of—from the sights and sounds we see or hear to those we recall—is post-cinematic perception.

Mr. Hippo’s instantaneous reactions combine with Mr. Flashlight’s realistic model of now-ness to create the illusion of Mr. Now.

[ Edited: 03 April 2018 12:26 by Antisocialdarwinist]
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 April 2018 09:34
 

I’ll call this round 3. I still want to tackle your model. (with its consent)

Antisocialdarwinist - 03 April 2018 12:23 PM

There’s also a clear difference between recalling a thing and looking at it or listening to it or smelling it. I think this is where Mr. Now creeps in. Mr. Now seems to perceive reality directly, like Mr. Hippo, but somehow “you” are aware of Mr. Now, or at least what he’s perceiving. Is that more or less correct?

Nope. Only hippo receives direct sensory input. In the course of gleaning reality from it, hippo builds and delivers a slower, flowing picture and sound to cinematic perception. The picture is functionally honest to begin with. Both now and flashlight have a means of manipulating it.

When you say, “Mr. Now seems to perceive reality directly, like Mr. Hippo, but somehow “you” are aware of Mr. Now, or at least what he’s perceiving”, you are describing what it looks like from a perspective of self-narrating. It can become the only perspective accepted as a ‘perspective’. Everything else is an ‘illusion’. This condition was my original intention for the moniker Mr. Flashlight.

I could introduce you to folks for whom this state is impossible and incomprehensible. They don’t shepherd. They flow. Their narrative ability is weak and/or untrained and works unconsciously and exclusively in the form of auto-narrators. Most flashlight types classify these folks as ‘avoided’ and ‘dismissed’. Big mistake.

My position is that while it may seem like Mr. Now is perceiving reality directly, he’s actually not. Yes, the image of whatever you’re looking at is far more realistic than Mr. Flashlight’s recalled image of the same thing. It seems reasonable to assume that the recalled image is the model of reality and the viewed image is reality perceived directly. But we know it can’t be direct perception because of the optic nerve blind spot test. Yes, the room looks realistic when you cover one eye and look around, but where’s the blind spot? The blind spot exists in reality, but not in the model. Therefore, the conclusion I draw is that even when we’re looking at something, we’re still not seeing anything but a very realistic version of the model. Which belongs to Mr. Flashlight.
The state you ascribe to Mr. Now, of cinema perception running unmolested, is what the sports psychologists call the state of “flow,” or the state of being in “the zone.” But even in the zone, we know (from the optic nerve blind spot test) that “we,” whether that means Mr. Now or Mr. Flashlight, cannot be perceiving reality directly. Our awareness is restricted to the model. The narration is gone, but that’s just a matter of getting Mr. Flashlight to shut up for a change. Mr. Hippo is executing the task while Mr. Flashlight watches the post-cinematic (post by half a second) model of it happening. In other words, cinematic perception doesn’t exist, only the illusion of cinematic perception. In reality, everything we’re aware of—from the sights and sounds we see or hear to those we recall—is post-cinematic perception.
Mr. Hippo’s instantaneous reactions combine with Mr. Flashlight’s realistic model of now-ness to create the illusion of Mr. Now.

On the whole, what you describe is a very trioon picture. I have two pesky problems with it.

The lad-speak needs to evolve into a discussion of perceptions and not some ghostly homunculi. The mechanics do not track the lads one-to-one in function. Yes, Mr. Flashlight models reality but only because our mid-perception is already there to manipulate. Cinema perception is the flow. It will model with or without Mr. Flashlight’s shepherding. Unnarrated, it is Mr. Now. Self-narrated, it is Mr. Flashlight.

The other snag is best described thusly…

In talking trioon with strong self-narrators, (thoughtful, well-educated folks like yourself), Mr. Flashlight is easy to express and folks latch on pretty quickly. As with you, Mr. Now is a contested, illusory or un-understood idea. When talking trioon with what I perceive as weak narrators, it is Mr. Now that lights them up and the Flashlight idea is rejected as something that must only happen to me.

I assume that narrators cannot relate to non-narration and vice versa. Sort of like progressives and trumpies. It always starts with an objection. In my line of werk, I am often asked to explain how RGB (red blue green color vision) works. Half the time, the response is, “Maybe you see in RGB. but I see colors.”

Hence, a trouble with trioon or ladology in particular, is that the nuances you describe are trenchant and form a relatable model for a certain type of person (strong self-narrator, Mr. Flashlight, “I shepherd my own thoughts”). Other people would cast the lads into a different configuration that they could relate to. It would not include Mr. Flashlight. Revealing this is their only real useful purpose. Real trioon is the single machine that makes these different states of cognition or, laditation, possible.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
05 April 2018 08:08
 

Tackle away.

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone like the Now-types you describe as existing in a permanent state of flow. If they exist, I suspect they’re probably either professional golfers or zen masters. Based on my sports psychology reading, achieving that state of mind is the Holy Grail when it comes to peak performance. When they say this or that is “90% mental,” that’s what they mean: achieving a state of flow is 90% of what it takes to excel. Such a Now-type person, it seems to me, would be admired and envied, not avoided or dismissed. Which makes me wonder if we’re talking about the same thing.

If cinema perception is flow-not-shepherding, then shouldn’t a person in a state of flow be aware of the optic nerve blind spot when he covers one eye and looks around the room? How about your non-shepherding Now-types? Do they “see” it? Or is the filling in of the blind spot not an example of shepherding?

It seems to me that if most people can relate to either Mr. Now or Mr. Flashlight but not both, then most people would seem to relate to a bioon rather than trioon model. The disagreement becomes one of who Mr. Hippo’s sole companion is.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
05 April 2018 10:53
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 05 April 2018 08:08 AM

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone like the Now-types you describe as existing in a permanent state of flow. If they exist, I suspect they’re probably either professional golfers or zen masters.

Wow. Really? Wow. I am surrounded. Currently, there are few self-narrators in my life- my pal at the gas station and the folks at jagland. The only coherent sentences I am ever exposed to anymore is here on the forum. I am drowning in other people’s ‘flow’. They are not zen masters. They are din masters.

Based on my sports psychology reading, achieving that state of mind is the Holy Grail when it comes to peak performance. When they say this or that is “90% mental,” that’s what they mean: achieving a state of flow is 90% of what it takes to excel. Such a Now-type person, it seems to me, would be admired and envied, not avoided or dismissed. Which makes me wonder if we’re talking about the same thing.

We are, just from two different tangents. The discipline of training and the rigors of education strengthen our capacity to narrate. A whole second discipline is required to learn to shut it off and perform in a state of Mr. Now. Someone who is untrained is already in this state but they have no imbedded sports training that makes them FUN to watch. There are no trained graces for the flow to reveal.

If cinema perception is flow-not-shepherding, then shouldn’t a person in a state of flow be aware of the optic nerve blind spot when he covers one eye and looks around the room? How about your non-shepherding Now-types? Do they “see” it? Or is the filling in of the blind spot not an example of shepherding?

No. Filing in the blind spot is an example of redundancy. The two optical puckers are not leaving a hole of darkness in the visual field. Hippo does not see them or need them filled in as he does not use the visual field. He generates it for further perceptions. One discovers the blind spot cinematically. It is a conclusion drawn from the picture. How does knowing it is there or understanding it technically ‘fill’ the hole?

It seems to me that if most people can relate to either Mr. Now or Mr. Flashlight but not both, then most people would seem to relate to a bioon rather than trioon model. The disagreement becomes one of who Mr. Hippo’s sole companion is.

The disagreement is over what is bi or tri. The point of the count is quantifying perceptual functions and not cartoon personalities. Flashlight-types have cinematic perception. Now-types have auto-narration. That’s three perceptions in two configurations or laditations.

The word is not ‘sole’, it is dominant. Nows have fleeting flashlights and vice versa.

There is a distinct third type who can embrace both. They are strong narrators but are not dominated by states of flashlightness. Mr. Now and the flow are available on cue. Ann and Nancy Wilson come to mind. These types tend to become musicians.

Here’s an experiment about modeling…

Stand at one end of a long hallway while looking at its other end. Then, close your eyes and picture yourself standing at one end of a long hallway while looking at its other end. (This will be an example of a narrated cinematic perception.)

What is different about the end of the hallway? What are you seeing physically that you aren’t seeing mentally (unless you are deliberately putting it there)?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
06 April 2018 09:16
 

Maybe I have met some of these flow-er children, but didn’t realize who I was dealing with. How would I know? What tips you off? And why is it a mistake to avoid or dismiss them?

No, the two optical puckers aren’t black holes, but they’re clearly “invisible.” Do the experiment if you haven’t already: cover your left eye and fix your right eye’s gaze on the X. Put your finger right next to the X and slide it to the right, watching with your peripheral vision.

X…...................................................................................................................................................O….........................+..............................O…......................

I’m sitting with my eyes about two feet from the computer screen. My finger disappears were I put the first O and doesn’t reappear until I get past the second. The gap is about as high as it is wide, if I slide my finger up and down over the +. That’s a pretty big blind spot—it should obvious. And it doesn’t get filled in as a result of understanding it technically. It’s filled automatically whether you understand it or not.

My explanation is that the blind spot is filled in when it gets incorporated into the model of reality. The implication is that the sights we’re aware of are not directly experienced, but models of what is being directly experienced. We’re not aware of what we’re “seeing,” we’re aware of a model constructed partially of what we’re seeing, and partially of a bunch of subjective expectations, beliefs, etc.. If I understand you correctly, you’re not buying this, at least not when it comes to the blind spot. But I don’t understand what you mean by “redundancy.” What exactly is redundant here? And how does it fill in the blind spot?

Unfortunately, there are no hallways in my house so I can’t try your experiment as you describe. But there is a reclining chair across the room. So, I first look at that chair. Then I close my eyes and imagine myself sitting in the chair looking back at me. I see a vague image of the chair and an even vaguer image of someone sitting in the chair, but it could be anyone. It’s more of a human-shaped blind spot. But I’ve never been very good at visualization and I’ve never had an out-of-body experience, no matter how many drugs I take.

The eyes-open image is far more detailed and colorful and clear than the eyes-closed image. The details are missing from the eyes-closed image unless I put them in, but it takes an effort to put them in. The chair, the light switch, the photograph, the speaker, the window, the corner, the motion detector—it’s like having tunnel vision in a way. Each detail appears when I think about it, but one overall image with all of them at once is elusive. Is that what you mean?

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
07 April 2018 06:24
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 April 2018 09:16 AM

Maybe I have met some of these flow-er children, but didn’t realize who I was dealing with. How would I know? What tips you off? And why is it a mistake to avoid or dismiss them?

They are often dismissed as childish and avoided as boring and irrelevant. Speech tends to be more musical with a more discernable sense of rhythm. Chains of reasoning are so short as to be plain silly. Patience is thin and brief as is attention. Cleverness is intact but ‘figuring things out’ is left to other people. Fox Nudes caters to these folks. When they disagree with each other, it gets nasty and personal. They fight via intellectual champions who figured things out for them.

It is usually assumed that they are uninformed or stupid. I say they are as sharp as a tack and as bright as a bulb but they can’t self-narrate to save their lives. Modern education changes that. Good info is useful but the key is strengthening our third perception.

My explanation is that the blind spot is filled in when it gets incorporated into the model of reality. The implication is that the sights we’re aware of are not directly experienced, but models of what is being directly experienced. We’re not aware of what we’re “seeing,” we’re aware of a model constructed partially of what we’re seeing, and partially of a bunch of subjective expectations, beliefs, etc.. If I understand you correctly, you’re not buying this, at least not when it comes to the blind spot. But I don’t understand what you mean by “redundancy.” What exactly is redundant here? And how does it fill in the blind spot?

I say it is redundant to say it is at first not filled in and then it is filled in. The gap in our sensors is compensated for with a spatially imperfect picture. Steering the aim of OUR EYEBALLS is hippo’s solution to the bald spot.

Where you say model, I say picture. There is a sequence of events to consider. Hippo need maintain only a low resolution spatial model as a sense of where he is. Demands for modeling ramp up when something is heading toward you. The modeling is localized and not full field. Hippo does not need a picture to do this. If he is busy enough, there is no complete cinematic picture. The picture comes next (from hippo) for Now/Flashlight laditations to ‘model’.

The notion that our vision is like a camera sensor that sees a visual field that our brains then see and act on should be called Robot Vision. Hippo carries out all his seeing business before the picture, which he does not need. The picture is for cinematic perception.

Unfortunately, there are no hallways in my house … Each detail appears when I think about it, but one overall image with all of them at once is elusive. Is that what you mean?

Mine either. No, wrong angle. Memories of an airport or school will do. The point is, the end of the hallway recedes to a vanishing point. Hippo visually stands his ground with an anchored point of perspective. Build a model of the scene in your mind. No vanishing points. Our cinematic perception is not anchored to a perspective. It is anchored instead to a ghostly inner experiencer, or mind. On it own, cinematic perception flows. That’s bioonity. Add a capacity to shepherd cinematic perception and re-sequence the flow and that’s trioonity. 

 

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
09 April 2018 10:34
 

I’m not so sure I buy your characterization of apparently “uninformed or stupid” people. Have you ever asked one of these suspected non-narrators what goes on inside his or her head? What makes you think they’re not narrating? Most of our narrating, after all, is just rationalizing or justifying Hippo’s conclusions and decisions. Isn’t it possible that the problem with these folks lies with Hippo? And that Flashlight is there after all, doing the best he can with what he has to work with?

So, the difference between cinematic perception/robot vision and post-cinematic perception is that the former is a picture, but the latter is a model? And the reason the optic nerve blind spot doesn’t appear in the picture is because it’s being compensated for by a spatially imperfect picture? Well, what specifically is causing this picture to be spatially imperfect in just the way we’re expecting it to be? And why would it be filled in at all? It certainly doesn’t add any value in terms of survival. There’s no reason to think that organisms that fill in their blind spots with an illusion would stand a better chance of survival than organisms that don’t, is there? Or is there some evolutionary advantage to it that I’m missing?

I’m reminded of the Hubble Space Telescope, how when they first got it up and running they realized that the main mirror had an a flaw in it. I think they used software to correct for the flaw. If we’re using “software” to correct for the optic nerve blind spot, then it seems to me that the result is not a picture, but a model. In the same way that a picture of Kim Kardashian that’s been Photoshopped to make her look less fat isn’t really a “picture” of Kim Kardashian, it’s a model of her based on a combination of what she looks like in reality and her own subjective preference.

I’m not sure I follow your last paragraph. Did you mean to say that our cinematic perception is not anchored to a perspective? Or post-cinematic? (Am I seeing the vanishing points with my eyes closed or open?)

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
11 April 2018 10:06
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 09 April 2018 10:34 AM

I’m not so sure I buy your characterization of apparently “uninformed or stupid” people. Have you ever asked one of these suspected non-narrators what goes on inside his or her head?

Our definitions are not going to find a middle ground. Your basic model of mind cannot be made slightly trioon. The structure is completely different.

I’ve asked, but what’s the point? No one knows what is going on in their head or we all would not be postulating about it. It is easier to see what’s going on from the outside.

What makes you think they’re not narrating?

With the right definition of the term, it is plain to see in operation. It is plain to see someone straining to do it. It is easy to tell when someone yields their ability to follow what you are saying and when they cannot. It is easy to count the steps and the beats as they speak.

Most of our narrating, after all, is just rationalizing or justifying Hippo’s conclusions and decisions.

This description is symptomatic of the condition called excessive narration or Mr. Flashlight-ness. While intellectually advanced, the state is not entirely healthy. Technically, it is not in Hippo’s perceptual range to make conclusions based on multiple perceptions. That is what cinematic perception is for. Narrative rationalizing is applied to Hippo’s desires and Mr. Now’s flow of thoughts. Most of it is aural narration.

Isn’t it possible that the problem with these folks lies with Hippo? And that Flashlight is there after all, doing the best he can with what he has to work with?

The problem with ascribing the whole mind-part (or second half of bioonity) to Mr. Flashlight is that it misses how the narrative machinery can work without him in a manner that is not experienced with a sense of self. Non-flashlight types use auto-narration as an alternative to self-narration while cinematic perception bears the sense of self. When triggered, a pre-fab shepherd sequences Mr. Now’s flow of thoughts. It tends to be erractic and undisciplined in the unwashed. Even heavy flashlight types use this configuration to deliver sentences that they are not actually composing consciously.

So, the difference between cinematic perception/robot vision and post-cinematic perception is that the former is a picture, but the latter is a model?

Cinematic perception starts with a composite picture delivered by Hippo’s visual machinery. The ability to model and modify and conclude is in our second perception. However, it cannot change the order of the things it perceives. It is a flowing or elapsing perception. No flow, no cinematic perception. Hippo can be all alone in a panic.

Post-cinema perception is an enhancement to our ability to model and conclude and compose. It beats the chunk-limit by allowing resequencing of the flow from a perspective that is not ‘in’ the flow. It is that silly bridge over the flowing water metaphor again. If your sense of self is on the bridge, then you are self-narrating your flow. If your sense of self is in the flow, then a ghostly figure on the bridge may be narrating your flow.

And the reason the optic nerve blind spot doesn’t appear in the picture is because it’s being compensated for by a spatially imperfect picture? Well, what specifically is causing this picture to be spatially imperfect in just the way we’re expecting it to be?

What would it look like if it wasn’t? Close one eye. Now, Mr. Hippo has lost the info that corrects the imperfection. Never mind the severed finger. What does it look like? It doesn’t get a look like. A hole would be something to look like. Two eyes provide cross-correction if needed for a steering cue but not for a picture.

And why would it be filled in at all? It certainly doesn’t add any value in terms of survival. There’s no reason to think that organisms that fill in their blind spots with an illusion would stand a better chance of survival than organisms that don’t, is there? Or is there some evolutionary advantage to it that I’m missing?

I cannot grasp it as a hole hence I cannot grasp filling it in with an illusion. In a sense, the whole cinematic picture is an illusion. Hippo has already seen and reacted raw visual info. It is a second sense that is satisfied with the projected illusions of the cinemaplex. Hippo does not need to hold his head still and lock his gaze to maintain a spatial sense of place. Cinematic perception does because of its relative latency and duration.

I’m reminded of the Hubble Space Telescope, how when they first got it up and running they realized that the main mirror had an a flaw in it. I think they used software to correct for the flaw. If we’re using “software” to correct for the optic nerve blind spot, then it seems to me that the result is not a picture, but a model.

The picture is a model in 2D. Pictures do not exist anywhere except in mental experience. Without EYEBALLS and a brain, a photo-album is just spots with diverse photon reflecting habits. Hippo does not see pictures so he does not need corrective illusions to fill them. Considering the surprise folks have the first time they do the trick, Mr. Now is not put-out by it either.

In the same way that a picture of Kim Kardashian that’s been Photoshopped to make her look less fat isn’t really a “picture” of Kim Kardashian, it’s a model of her based on a combination of what she looks like in reality and her own subjective preference.

Who? Photoshopping the cinematic picture is a great analogy. Cinematic perception can change its picture with certain limitations like a knock-off PS. Like fatter or slimmer and taller or shorter. Upgrading to Post-cinematic PS allows Kim to have eyes in her armpits and nostrils on her knees. Unless that isn’t her subjective preference.

I’m not sure I follow your last paragraph. Did you mean to say that our cinematic perception is not anchored to a perspective? Or post-cinematic? (Am I seeing the vanishing points with my eyes closed or open?)

Yes, or no, and yes. This is also how trioon can seem like a two-level scheme. The picture can be anchored to hippo’s localized perspective we become Hippo enhanced with cinematic perception. At the same time, some of us can self-narrate auditory stuff like words without any anchoring to anything in the picture. Some of us experience auto-narration of words triggered by cues. If any of want to narrate visually or abstractly, we have take cinematic vision away from Hippo. Should we need to hear what going on and figure out what is happening, Hippo will grab cinematic hearing and word narration of any kind becomes impossible. However, visual auto-narration can occur.

In all cases, there are seemingly two things it like to be as in a body and a mind but there are three perceptions providing these results.

With cinematic perception unanchored from Hippo vision, any visual modeling of a 3D situation will have no vanishing points unless mentally PS’ed into them.

Robot Vision is intended to refer to when nothing is seen is by no one yet we still call it vision. It is a dysfunction of non-trioon models.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
16 April 2018 08:17
 

I think you should investigate these “flow-er” children of yours a little more. I don’t see how you can airily wave your hand and proclaim that “No one knows what’s going on inside their head.” They’re not dogs or snails—they speak English, or some language with which communication is possible, don’t they? Just ask them: What are you thinking about right now? If they repeatedly say, “nothing,” or that they’re only thinking about the present moment, then maybe you’re on to something. But if they answer that they’re thinking about a TV show they watched last night, then I think you’ll have to reconsider your claim here. From everything I’ve read on the topic, the “monkey mind”—the name sometimes given to Mr. Flashlight’s interference when Mr. Hippo is trying to execute a task—is ubiquitous. If it’s not, then you’ve stumbled across an unexpected phenomenon, one which might warrant another look at traditional models of consciousness.

Another possibility might be to ask them to perform a task that we both agree depends on Mr. Flashlight. Like, for example, ask them to recall their childhood. Or bounce a metaphor off them, one that they’re unlikely to have encountered before. If you don’t consider these examples to be the exclusive purview of Mr. Flashlight, then what would be? (I don’t buy your claim that being dimwitted is, in and of itself, proof that Mr. Flashlight isn’t home.)

If, on the other hand, there’s nothing that belongs exclusively to Mr. Flashlight—if anything Mr. Flashlight can do, Mr. Now can do, too—then what is the advantage of a three-state model? What does it explain that a two-state model can’t?

I do agree that the experience of looking at something is very different than the experience of recalling it. You claim this difference is evidence of two completely different processes which produce two completely different images: one a picture, one a model. I claim the difference is a matter of degree: the more recently we’ve looked at something, the more vivid and accurate the model; looking at something in “real time” results in the most vivid and complete model of all—but one which we know is still just a model—an illusion, if you prefer—thanks to the missing optic nerve blind spot.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6546
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
18 April 2018 01:11
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 16 April 2018 08:17 AM

I think you should investigate these “flow-er” children of yours a little more. I don’t see how you can airily wave your hand and proclaim that “No one knows what’s going on inside their head.”

Airily wave my hand? It sounds dismissive. As does ‘children’. I am not suggesting telepathic access to their passcodes. I am suggesting that much of the head’s inside goings are plainly visible from the outside. Like the pace of language. It has no cosmic constant. Or our rhythms, which display how we think. They have no other existence.

They’re not dogs or snails—they speak English, or some language with which communication is possible, don’t they? Just ask them: What are you thinking about right now? If they repeatedly say, “nothing,” or that they’re only thinking about the present moment, then maybe you’re on to something. But if they answer that they’re thinking about a TV show they watched last night, then I think you’ll have to reconsider your claim here.

Of course they can talk. Why would trioon depend on them saying ‘nothing’? Trioon is what happens as they tell you what they saw on TV last night. You can watch it happen. Your model lacks a condition or state where there is no Flashlight, no consciousness as you describe it, but a person that is still fully operational and conversational. Whole lives can be led without ever self-narrating or achieving the state of consciousness we take for granted (a fully self-narrating Mr. Flashlight). Trioon says this state must be there. Mental functions within the threshold of the Mr. Now’s chunk-limit is how.

From everything I’ve read on the topic, the “monkey mind”—the name sometimes given to Mr. Flashlight’s interference when Mr. Hippo is trying to execute a task—is ubiquitous.

Of course. It is when EYEBALL steering switches from Hippo to Now. I won’t infringe upon someone else’s imaginary mental animals. Mine are a handful.

If it’s not, then you’ve stumbled across an unexpected phenomenon, one which might warrant another look at traditional models of consciousness.

No need to call it an unexpected phenomena. They are the unexpected actual workings. Another look is loudly warranted. Right now, all the brand X models propose that humans are inexplicable leaps of complexity and or consciousness beyond the animal kingdom. Trioon proposes that there is just one additional quality or ability needed to account for humans and their civilizations. It is not an extra homunculus. It is just gears added to a machine.

Another possibility might be to ask them to perform a task that we both agree depends on Mr. Flashlight. Like, for example, ask them to recall their childhood. Or bounce a metaphor off them, one that they’re unlikely to have encountered before. If you don’t consider these examples to be the exclusive purview of Mr. Flashlight, then what would be?

There would be no exclusive subject or task. The difference would be in the way they are gone about. Most human day to day tasks and communications precede both narration and homo sapiens. Logically, narration or Mr. Flashlight does not make them possible but merely enhances them.

(I don’t buy your claim that being dimwitted is, in and of itself, proof that Mr. Flashlight isn’t home.)

It is not my claim. Some of the dumbest folks are super-flashlights. That’s the point. There is more than one way to be dumb. There is poor intelligence, and there is short-sightedness in using it. Shortness is being intelligent for too few steps of reasoning or giving in when reasoning induces happiness. Long-sightedness and looking farther ahead pushes past this old method and warrants the distinction as ‘critical thinking’ or ‘planning’. All that requires is a stronger narrative ability.

I expressed my frustration with the short-sightedness of those around me. They are all smart people. That’s not enough.

If, on the other hand, there’s nothing that belongs exclusively to Mr. Flashlight—if anything Mr. Flashlight can do, Mr. Now can do, too—then what is the advantage of a three-state model?

Mr. Now is limited if clever in his methods. Rhythm, rhyme and songs are his only means of perceiving complex information. Then, long ago, narrative ability emerged as an additional perception first automatically as a visitor and in time, self-directed and self-possessed.  Management of the emergence of narrative perception in a society’s citizens is what divides us. With a two-stage model, all you have to fight over is who is stupid and who is smart. That is a genetic issue. A third perception that been there in everyone for gobs of millennias is not a challenge to genetic quality. It is a matter of whether it is encouraged, defeated or held exclusive for the few.

What does it explain that a two-state model can’t?

Murray’s Bell Curve. So-called IQ vs race. What the America we want back depends on. Mental illness. Music. Trump supporters.

I do agree that the experience of looking at something is very different than the experience of recalling it. You claim this difference is evidence of two completely different processes which produce two completely different images: one a picture, one a model.

One of them is neither an image or a model. There is no composite coalescence of an image for Hippo’s sub-cinematic perception. Spatial modeling is only as needed and can stop entirely. If the blind spot compromises that ability, Hippo steers the EYEBALLS. There is no hole to fill in for Hippo. By the time the composite appears, it is irrelevant.

I claim the difference is a matter of degree: the more recently we’ve looked at something, the more vivid and accurate the model; looking at something in “real time” results in the most vivid and complete model of all—but one which we know is still just a model—an illusion, if you prefer—thanks to the missing optic nerve blind spot.

To my ears, it is saying that our minds are flat and live in a zero. The old brand X isn’t just wrong, it is impossible. We make a model, and then we… see it? Then how did we make the model if we didn’t know what we were looking at until we made the model that we can’t see until we make it?! 

The real illusion is, how much of what we see is a composited image and how much is not. The making is in itself the first act of seeing. The model/image/picture/illusion/whatzits is the second act of seeing with ‘Mr.Now’ representing the apparent recipient of the sensation of cinematic sight and sound. This is necessary because the sensation has sufficient latency to be fully de-correlated from Hippo’s perceptual timeframe. Hence the invented characters. Mr. Now is a concept-transforming-icon intended to stand as a replacement for the concept of ‘mind’ whilst trioon is explained. They we take them out and shoot them. Or so I thought.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3905
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
18 April 2018 02:59
 

The longer this conversation ensues, the deeper it sinks into the icky, oozy, muddy, botttomless pit of philosophizing word salad.

No one knows, definitively, the actions/reactions going on amongst the brain’s neurons that comprise a “thought”.  This conversation is all just blind men groping and arguing over what what an elephant is.  There is an “inside” of the elephant about which the blind men know absolutely nothing, nor can they know.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21959
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
18 April 2018 04:34
 

In its simplest form, Trioonity gives a model of how perception works.  The more the conversation gets into the weeds, the less authoritative the model seems.  I don’t think we are at the point where we can know precisely how it works. I prefer to keep it as a simple model and leave it at that.  Nhoj has a unique subjective experience.  Maybe I’m just not that complex.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
18 April 2018 04:50
 
EN - 18 April 2018 04:34 AM

  Nhoj has a unique subjective experience.

You are truly Christian in your diplomacy.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
18 April 2018 07:27
 
jdrnd - 18 April 2018 04:50 AM
EN - 18 April 2018 04:34 AM

  Nhoj has a unique subjective experience.

You are truly Christian in your diplomacy.

Jeff, if you were a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, would it assist you with any aspect of your work to have access to nomenclature that would allow you to discuss the brain (mind) functions of your patients? If so, what system would you use? Would you defer to Freudian terminology/theory during those moments when you need to discuss certain things with a patient?

Obviously our brains contain no cartoonish characters working continuously to get us through our human days. Trioon is a metaphor. Nhoj is open to revising his scheme, I assume.

Have you considered critiquing trioon the way you might critique a fellow doctor’s writings? That is, I don’t remember you ever getting specific in your anti-trioon posts. Am I mistaken?

[Edited to add a “(mind)”.]

[ Edited: 18 April 2018 07:59 by nonverbal]
 
 
‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 >