Volution Maps
Re: Volution Maps
With soil or "earth" being a mixture of rock, crystal, water, air, and even the occasional fire. Where humus is like an organic attractor for minerals that enable vital chemical reactions. Goes to show just how powerful a simple, indigenous model like ( fire, earth, water, air ) can be. Especially, when integrated with other models in the space like the great chain of being.
Soil being the medium of root & shoot life. Air and water being the medium of gather & hunt life.
The application of statistical mechanics and fluid dynamics in determining the probabilistic spread/distribution of crystal formation seems pertinent here. As crystallization processes can be "seeded" from afar through planet fluidity, as you say. Interesting note at a higher scale may be examples of larger crystals(*) struggling to punctuate into novel territories separated by ocean. Thus, allowing for some degree of isolation between landmass-air intersections that divvy up the bio-regions and phylogenetic tree a bit.
(*) or a collection of crystals generating a complex body/system.
Seems like if you take the global organism metaphor seriously then something like the omega point or reflection point of volution towards global attunement implies an "absolute" civil gem of sorts. Though, in communication, agents can act as distinct with polarities that imply a relativity in civil gem formation and reference. As infliction points of self-reference could be thought to be going on very frequently at many different scales across time (ditto free will). With attractor points like orange capitalism and science largely defining the current era with many surrounding points defining the overton window of the nooshpere. With the fringe being a line on which the polarization of agents towards reality and woo is sensitive to perturbation.
Or I could just be jibber jabbing.
Soil being the medium of root & shoot life. Air and water being the medium of gather & hunt life.
The application of statistical mechanics and fluid dynamics in determining the probabilistic spread/distribution of crystal formation seems pertinent here. As crystallization processes can be "seeded" from afar through planet fluidity, as you say. Interesting note at a higher scale may be examples of larger crystals(*) struggling to punctuate into novel territories separated by ocean. Thus, allowing for some degree of isolation between landmass-air intersections that divvy up the bio-regions and phylogenetic tree a bit.
(*) or a collection of crystals generating a complex body/system.
Seems like if you take the global organism metaphor seriously then something like the omega point or reflection point of volution towards global attunement implies an "absolute" civil gem of sorts. Though, in communication, agents can act as distinct with polarities that imply a relativity in civil gem formation and reference. As infliction points of self-reference could be thought to be going on very frequently at many different scales across time (ditto free will). With attractor points like orange capitalism and science largely defining the current era with many surrounding points defining the overton window of the nooshpere. With the fringe being a line on which the polarization of agents towards reality and woo is sensitive to perturbation.
Or I could just be jibber jabbing.
Last edited by daylen on Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16373
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Volution Maps
Does volution halt completely at the Omega point? It seems like it should. Everything is incorporated including time. There is no after, so "halt" may make no sense. All time exists simultaneously, which makes the condition "without time". ("timeless" would be highly misleading.)
(I'm mainly interested in how these lines of thinking may change/affect current human behavior.)
(I'm mainly interested in how these lines of thinking may change/affect current human behavior.)
Re: Volution Maps
In the absolute sense of omega, perhaps time or any other construct is one/none/all. Everything both is and isn't everything else. All paradox is resolved. Relative to anything in particular (i.e. human behavior), omega is infinitely distributed and takes on an infinite number of different interpretations. With volution being the study of such reference points in scale-time.
With the above paragraph being generated through a flowing human behavior acting as non-human behavior and thus being something of a tangle. As it could be said that evolution never was when posing as time itself.
Though, I am just going off symmetry at this point given my relative agency indicating an incomplete familiarity with the evolutionary path of the concept "omega point" and how it is influencing the communion of this thread.
With the above paragraph being generated through a flowing human behavior acting as non-human behavior and thus being something of a tangle. As it could be said that evolution never was when posing as time itself.
Though, I am just going off symmetry at this point given my relative agency indicating an incomplete familiarity with the evolutionary path of the concept "omega point" and how it is influencing the communion of this thread.
Re: Volution Maps
Volution can be split into grounded and groundless. The grounded version of the theory can draw points/lines/curves/diamonds/windows in scaletime, while the groundless version of the theory draws points/frames/agents(*) without a background metric (i.e. purely topological).
An agent matrix can be drawn in scaleclosure(**), where scale is derived from clustering and labeling distance measurements, and closure is derived from bounding agents in time then branching and volving such references. Built on rulers, protractors, clocks, and dictionaries, with the reconciliation of agent drawings being a generative exercise for intuitions and feelings about the past/future.
(*) May be extended with maps and structures (i.e. dotted and solid rectangles). Could come in use when considering the scale of buildings and cities.
(**) Planets are at a higher scale than humans as they require larger distance measurements to "contain". A computer is more closed than a city as the bounds in time are sharper. If lots of human agents timed the conception and dissolution of computers and cities, then it would seem that the variation in the city data would be higher given the ambiguity in the transition from village to city to non-city. Though, cities tend to have much longer lifetimes than computers so perhaps their closure is closer than may be expected. With species perhaps being of a relatively high closure when compared to cities (this may be too much of a gene-centered intuition, though).
-----------------
Evolution, as the majority sees it, is mostly about genes, organisms, and species. Which for volution is a fine set of agents to start posing past convolutions. An agent whom feels grounded in spacetime may extend such to scaleclosure and thereby loose some faith in the gene-centered view of selection on their past/future. The fluidity of agents in scaleclosure may suggest a variety of involutions into the future, with distant pasts/futures requiring larger convolutions (i.e. scale intervals) and large/small agents requiring longer revolutions (i.e. time intervals). On top of this feeling, an agent may gain an intuition of the winding up and down processes in scaletime from the groundless version of the theory (i.e. relative comparison of different point/frame/agent/map/structure patterns).
Volution centers the self-reference problem. That is, agents attend to agents attending to agents... co-volution -> convolutions -> convergence -> measurement. The measurements/observations of any agent may vary in the degree of past/future convolution and may be variably influenced by upper/lower revolutions, but all such variations, theoretically, can be translated between agents fluently. Nothing is completely wrong, and problems of consistency are only resolved selfishly through limitless self-reference.
So is how the story has been developing thus far.
An agent matrix can be drawn in scaleclosure(**), where scale is derived from clustering and labeling distance measurements, and closure is derived from bounding agents in time then branching and volving such references. Built on rulers, protractors, clocks, and dictionaries, with the reconciliation of agent drawings being a generative exercise for intuitions and feelings about the past/future.
(*) May be extended with maps and structures (i.e. dotted and solid rectangles). Could come in use when considering the scale of buildings and cities.
(**) Planets are at a higher scale than humans as they require larger distance measurements to "contain". A computer is more closed than a city as the bounds in time are sharper. If lots of human agents timed the conception and dissolution of computers and cities, then it would seem that the variation in the city data would be higher given the ambiguity in the transition from village to city to non-city. Though, cities tend to have much longer lifetimes than computers so perhaps their closure is closer than may be expected. With species perhaps being of a relatively high closure when compared to cities (this may be too much of a gene-centered intuition, though).
-----------------
Evolution, as the majority sees it, is mostly about genes, organisms, and species. Which for volution is a fine set of agents to start posing past convolutions. An agent whom feels grounded in spacetime may extend such to scaleclosure and thereby loose some faith in the gene-centered view of selection on their past/future. The fluidity of agents in scaleclosure may suggest a variety of involutions into the future, with distant pasts/futures requiring larger convolutions (i.e. scale intervals) and large/small agents requiring longer revolutions (i.e. time intervals). On top of this feeling, an agent may gain an intuition of the winding up and down processes in scaletime from the groundless version of the theory (i.e. relative comparison of different point/frame/agent/map/structure patterns).
Volution centers the self-reference problem. That is, agents attend to agents attending to agents... co-volution -> convolutions -> convergence -> measurement. The measurements/observations of any agent may vary in the degree of past/future convolution and may be variably influenced by upper/lower revolutions, but all such variations, theoretically, can be translated between agents fluently. Nothing is completely wrong, and problems of consistency are only resolved selfishly through limitless self-reference.
So is how the story has been developing thus far.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16373
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Volution Maps
Giving the thread about grit...
It's possible that volution might exist in a state of tension with the perceived reality-constraints of the environment. In @AH's post it's suggested that volution is innate (from evolution)... lets back up.
Insofar stoke originates in the involution of the universe and human brains are the most capable of serving as the "wellsprings" of this involution. And this involution becomes capable of being expressed by the evolution of the universe (agents), that is, the more evolved the agent, the more capable the agent is of channeling this involution. (E.g involution goes from homo habilis to homo sapiens).
Yet as agents develop beyond Kegan2 by increasing interior complexity (subjective and intersubjective), their internal complexity might become restrained as far as exterior/surface/flatland expressions go due to pre-incorporating other agents. (This is a whole other level of voluting the noosphere. Currently expressed in silly meme wars.)
Effectively, grit is a primary drive of involution. However, involution will only go as far as evolution has allowed the channel to express it. The human social animal allows volution as far as Kegan5 in rare cases. Pushing further is just banging one's head against a wall and operant conditioning (which is a rational game theoretic response) will eventually shut down such an effort.
That's also to say that the solution to regaining grit might be to find an outlet where the expression of the grit will thrive.
It's possible that volution might exist in a state of tension with the perceived reality-constraints of the environment. In @AH's post it's suggested that volution is innate (from evolution)... lets back up.
Insofar stoke originates in the involution of the universe and human brains are the most capable of serving as the "wellsprings" of this involution. And this involution becomes capable of being expressed by the evolution of the universe (agents), that is, the more evolved the agent, the more capable the agent is of channeling this involution. (E.g involution goes from homo habilis to homo sapiens).
Yet as agents develop beyond Kegan2 by increasing interior complexity (subjective and intersubjective), their internal complexity might become restrained as far as exterior/surface/flatland expressions go due to pre-incorporating other agents. (This is a whole other level of voluting the noosphere. Currently expressed in silly meme wars.)
Effectively, grit is a primary drive of involution. However, involution will only go as far as evolution has allowed the channel to express it. The human social animal allows volution as far as Kegan5 in rare cases. Pushing further is just banging one's head against a wall and operant conditioning (which is a rational game theoretic response) will eventually shut down such an effort.
That's also to say that the solution to regaining grit might be to find an outlet where the expression of the grit will thrive.
Re: Volution Maps
Interesting stuff about the convergence of spiritual practitioners(*) towards using Se-Ni-(Fi/Fe) heavily. Perhaps then the ego-aware path towards such tends to come from more of an F-oriented development as opposed to more of a T-oriented [construct-aware] path. With the distinction being that thoughts/maps tend to be like a scaffolding for feelings/frames. A scaffolding may allow the speedy construction of a frame distributor, though this may lead to a large-world routing of said feelings and thus a lag in map-frame reconciliations.
(*) or generally anyone who has had a lot of grit in the right outlet(s) to reconcile a given structure-point combination.
(*) or generally anyone who has had a lot of grit in the right outlet(s) to reconcile a given structure-point combination.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16373
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Volution Maps
I would really really like to see some typological dimension to ego or AQAL development. Humans have 3 different brain-systems to play on which dominate the aggregate mental process to become a type. I think these determine what theories are formed or at least preferred rather than the other way around.
Unitive and ego-awareness does indeed seem more appealing/compatible with a strong Fe and possibly Fi, whereas construct-awareness is INT catnip with INTs probably building these systems from the start of formop.
As far as I can summarize Cook-Greuter,
construct-aware = meaning-making all the way down, except the meaning-maker (=the ego itself)
ego-aware = meaning-making the meaning-maker and deciding that meaning-making is useless (but why?) leading to unitive.
Unitive and ego-awareness does indeed seem more appealing/compatible with a strong Fe and possibly Fi, whereas construct-awareness is INT catnip with INTs probably building these systems from the start of formop.
As far as I can summarize Cook-Greuter,
construct-aware = meaning-making all the way down, except the meaning-maker (=the ego itself)
ego-aware = meaning-making the meaning-maker and deciding that meaning-making is useless (but why?) leading to unitive.
Re: Volution Maps
Here are a couple of the pieces I am working with at the moment:
Events, Activities, and Attentive Processes
An attentive process, or simply process, is a series of point-frame-map interactions (i.e. structural reference not required). An activity is a set of processes, and an event is a continuous [in each part] and potentially distributed(&) series of activities. With punctuation and potential event disruptions occurring when the structure changes through either increasing/decreasing the number of sides or otherwise inverting between polygon and star forms.
(&) Whether in spacetime or scaletime, or spaceclosure, ..or generally any "ground".
Agent Development in Flatland
If an agent is to develop then it is assumed to have a lifetime. A lifetime is composed of many events, some of which may be distributed in time due to structural punctuations. In flatland, it is presumed that agents remain a size of one and are the unit of all they can see both inwardly and externally. It is also assumed that agents in flatland are initiated at the start of their life with a point-agent-structure that lacks maps or frames. Though, this moment is infinitesimal and quickly succeeded by the emergence of a map-frame combination to regulate point-structure tension. Maps initiate greater than one and continue to grow towards and approach the structure; frames initiate at some fraction of the agent-unit and grow, fractionally towards one. In short, structures and maps diverge from 1 while frames and points converge to 1, with 1 being the normal agent size.
I propose that a point-agent-structure intersection in flatland is akin to being in the reptilian system, map-frame interactions are akin to routing with the limic system, and agent-agent dialectic or self-references(+) are akin to the edges(*) of the neo-cortical system.
(+) Though, the self-concept of "self" could be malleable.
(*) Edges being the beginnings and ends of neo-cortical processing.
Then the ratios between struct/map/frame/point sizes with extreme values could correspond with type hypotheses which may be falsified through general comparison to 4D-land. The idea for now is to build a way to talk about the complete lifetime of an agent so that any kind of difference between agents in event/activity construction, whether through culture, personality, development, environment, etc. can be considered by imagining the delta between different flatland drawings.
Events, Activities, and Attentive Processes
An attentive process, or simply process, is a series of point-frame-map interactions (i.e. structural reference not required). An activity is a set of processes, and an event is a continuous [in each part] and potentially distributed(&) series of activities. With punctuation and potential event disruptions occurring when the structure changes through either increasing/decreasing the number of sides or otherwise inverting between polygon and star forms.
(&) Whether in spacetime or scaletime, or spaceclosure, ..or generally any "ground".
Agent Development in Flatland
If an agent is to develop then it is assumed to have a lifetime. A lifetime is composed of many events, some of which may be distributed in time due to structural punctuations. In flatland, it is presumed that agents remain a size of one and are the unit of all they can see both inwardly and externally. It is also assumed that agents in flatland are initiated at the start of their life with a point-agent-structure that lacks maps or frames. Though, this moment is infinitesimal and quickly succeeded by the emergence of a map-frame combination to regulate point-structure tension. Maps initiate greater than one and continue to grow towards and approach the structure; frames initiate at some fraction of the agent-unit and grow, fractionally towards one. In short, structures and maps diverge from 1 while frames and points converge to 1, with 1 being the normal agent size.
I propose that a point-agent-structure intersection in flatland is akin to being in the reptilian system, map-frame interactions are akin to routing with the limic system, and agent-agent dialectic or self-references(+) are akin to the edges(*) of the neo-cortical system.
(+) Though, the self-concept of "self" could be malleable.
(*) Edges being the beginnings and ends of neo-cortical processing.
Then the ratios between struct/map/frame/point sizes with extreme values could correspond with type hypotheses which may be falsified through general comparison to 4D-land. The idea for now is to build a way to talk about the complete lifetime of an agent so that any kind of difference between agents in event/activity construction, whether through culture, personality, development, environment, etc. can be considered by imagining the delta between different flatland drawings.
Re: Volution Maps
In the above framework it is assumed that there is only ever one structure, map, agent, frame, and point at a time, each of which can grow and move relative to the agent normalized at the origin with a size of one. Though, another possible pathway to go is to have activities be represented as such and push attentive processing down to the micro level where multiple small maps/frames/points can exist simultaneously with the larger, singular versions. Then perhaps something like an actuator/flow could have multiple interpretations depending on what framework you use.
Re: Volution Maps
Other degrees of freedom besides size and side-count include granularity for maps/frames (i.e. how many dots in the closed, dotted line) and corner alignment between maps and structures.
Another alternative, simpler framework includes a static, yet growing/decaying structure-map-agent-frame-point combination that emits arrows between each, similar to the drawing of an intp in Drawing Agency thread. There are lots of directions to go, so I am drawn to look at how the Volution root can constrain the Ground and Agent sub-trees without limiting their collaborative capabilities.
Another alternative, simpler framework includes a static, yet growing/decaying structure-map-agent-frame-point combination that emits arrows between each, similar to the drawing of an intp in Drawing Agency thread. There are lots of directions to go, so I am drawn to look at how the Volution root can constrain the Ground and Agent sub-trees without limiting their collaborative capabilities.
Re: Volution Maps
Perhaps development can be approached either from a grit-oriented view of an extreme point-structure (N/S) ratio or from a grasp-oriented view of an extreme frame-map (F/T) ratio. Grit acting on a continuous intersection of point and structure, and grasp acting on discrete instances of map-frame alignment to an underlying/overlying point-structure combination. So, then types with a dominate perception function in their stack would develop more though grit, and types with a dominate judging function in their stack would develop more through grasping that which encapsulates/incapsulates grit.
Re: Volution Maps
The above presuming a stack with perception and judgement being inner/outer loops/feedbacks and that development occurs primarily though closing the outer loop [in the conscious half of the stack]. Though, clearly the situation can be imagined as more complex than that where there exists several layers of loops/feedbacks. With each layer giving rise to a unique classification/type system. Allowing for an overall "Type" to be a holarchy/hierarchy/heterarchy of types. This in turn can be matched to some parameter space for a some system of differential equations that have some boundary conditions that can possibly be matched to some Grounds where somehow falsification and creation are on the table to talk near each other with translations between "lands" of various dimensionality... potentially allowing volution of volution.. whatever that means.
Re: Volution Maps
This can be reversed so that point-structure intersections are linked to neo-cortical perception and agent self-reference to reptilian action-selection. Which makes more sense considering the top of the brain is like a large matrix of pointers with routers (i.e. cortical columns) for handling various structures influenced by various grounds (e.g. spacefrequency), and the basal ganglia is like a shell of species-influenced actions to be taken immediately (i.e. near the surface of an agent curve). Perhaps linking structural properties to neo-cortex modulation, where different columns at different scales activate in sync within a matrix similar to how different structures reveal how an agent can move in flatland.I propose that a point-agent-structure intersection in flatland is akin to being in the reptilian system, map-frame interactions are akin to routing with the limic system, and agent-agent dialectic or self-references(+) are akin to the edges(*) of the neo-cortical system.
Re: Volution Maps
Possible axiomatic starting base for the Volution root being..
A. existence of recursion OR existence is recursive
B. every recurrence has both an inside and an outside OR recurrences contain other recurrences
C. no gain or loss between recurrences OR for every pair of recurrences there exist a unique one-to-one mapping
..with Agent extensions..
a. exclusive existence of points, frames, agents, maps, and structures
b. existence is infinitely recursive
c. changes in anything punctuate to everything else(*)
(*) corollary being that no continuations in time, space, or whatever are required
..with Ground extensions..
a. existence of continuations(+)
b. agents can be alive or dead
c. only alive agents can realize continuities
d. realized continuities recur
(+) like in time, space, scale, closure, frequency, mass, etc.. gets interesting when considering quanta
In the Ground paradigm it is typically sought to find an invariant (i.e. a Lagrangian) such that some fine or coarse degree of difference can be detected and accounted for without its disturbance. Along with a way for agents to continue the experience and understanding of why changes in part of the picture may not affect the whole.
While the Agent paradigm is interested in treating the whole as variable with the revealed parts. In other words, the particulars influence the universals along with the inverse. The objective for this sub-tree, as it appears so far to me, is to find teachable methods for simulating and thus artificially puncturing existence so that possible continuations can be realized.
A. existence of recursion OR existence is recursive
B. every recurrence has both an inside and an outside OR recurrences contain other recurrences
C. no gain or loss between recurrences OR for every pair of recurrences there exist a unique one-to-one mapping
..with Agent extensions..
a. exclusive existence of points, frames, agents, maps, and structures
b. existence is infinitely recursive
c. changes in anything punctuate to everything else(*)
(*) corollary being that no continuations in time, space, or whatever are required
..with Ground extensions..
a. existence of continuations(+)
b. agents can be alive or dead
c. only alive agents can realize continuities
d. realized continuities recur
(+) like in time, space, scale, closure, frequency, mass, etc.. gets interesting when considering quanta
In the Ground paradigm it is typically sought to find an invariant (i.e. a Lagrangian) such that some fine or coarse degree of difference can be detected and accounted for without its disturbance. Along with a way for agents to continue the experience and understanding of why changes in part of the picture may not affect the whole.
While the Agent paradigm is interested in treating the whole as variable with the revealed parts. In other words, the particulars influence the universals along with the inverse. The objective for this sub-tree, as it appears so far to me, is to find teachable methods for simulating and thus artificially puncturing existence so that possible continuations can be realized.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Feb 06, 2022 10:25 am, edited 9 times in total.
Re: Volution Maps
Great inductive starting place when spreading overall volution paradigm being the double-split experiment extended to multiple slits and barriers to demonstrate the ground while also setting up an analogous transfer to agent by posing that complete knowledge of the slits are not sufficient to know where the shadows lie on the final backdrop [without something extra] (thus equalizing wholes and their parts through limited relevance/salience). Or something like that.
Re: Volution Maps
Emerges a dialectical between a Ground thesis and an Agent anti-thesis. The Ground stands on recursion(*) being an emergent property of matter volving on some ground, and where the Agent stands on recursion being inherently infinite and out of time. The Agent branch understands only how one agent volves into another agent, with the dynamics of an agent suspended in time being speculative. This mutual yet diverse ignorance shared between agents and grounds then affords dialog concerning how volution can be conceptualized as a synthesis.
(*) Which is essential for Neo-Darwinian models of evolution and the extension to involutionary models. With a particular level of selection at a lower scale convoluting with another level of selection at a higher scale. With variation at each level subject to information entropy measures once encoded, and then the correlations found between encodings may suggest a causal-like connection when some asymmetry is in play. One indicator of a favorable causal connection may be when an algorithm can learn to predict the state of an agent at one scale from the state of an agent at another, but not the other way around. In other words, the state of an agent contains the state of another, with the inner agent causing the outer agent to encorporate/incorporate (e.g. genes causing humans to ..). Another approach may be something like constructor theory where the primary question is whether a given construction can exist (i.e. what transformations are possible?, e.g. lead->gold?).
(*) Which is essential for Neo-Darwinian models of evolution and the extension to involutionary models. With a particular level of selection at a lower scale convoluting with another level of selection at a higher scale. With variation at each level subject to information entropy measures once encoded, and then the correlations found between encodings may suggest a causal-like connection when some asymmetry is in play. One indicator of a favorable causal connection may be when an algorithm can learn to predict the state of an agent at one scale from the state of an agent at another, but not the other way around. In other words, the state of an agent contains the state of another, with the inner agent causing the outer agent to encorporate/incorporate (e.g. genes causing humans to ..). Another approach may be something like constructor theory where the primary question is whether a given construction can exist (i.e. what transformations are possible?, e.g. lead->gold?).
Last edited by daylen on Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Volution Maps
Alternative model of chained C's:
May serve to support ground and link point-structure actuators/flows to continuity.
Analogous in some sense to a transformation from a node in a web of goals(*) to a goal-pos/neg chart like in the ERE book.
(*) constructed through a web of points, explanations, or intuitions.
ADD: CCCCCC or Jacob's C^6 being discovery first, and CCCC or C^4 being creation first.
May serve to support ground and link point-structure actuators/flows to continuity.
Analogous in some sense to a transformation from a node in a web of goals(*) to a goal-pos/neg chart like in the ERE book.
(*) constructed through a web of points, explanations, or intuitions.
ADD: CCCCCC or Jacob's C^6 being discovery first, and CCCC or C^4 being creation first.