Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The fifth and last step is to connect Signs/Symbols to Substances and Qualities, closing the last two iterative loops. This is the second binary branching, or fork in the road, the first being where we began at Integrity. Y'all know what the great NY Yankees catcher Yogi Berra said: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." I did. The pictures are now talking up a storm. This is where the two recursive paths make their appearance, as will be demonstrated. It's also where the I believe the epistemic or explanatory gap is bridged, directly addressing the mind-body problem, as demonstrated by the alternating crossing from internal mental phenomenal consciousness and external somatic phenomenal experience as mediated by symbolic awareness, knowledge, and memory, or the lexicon. In addition it's where a "switch" appears, permitting the cognitive alternation between internal and external awareness and memory. I call them "RecIt Cubes" for recursive-iterative, or iteratively supported recursion. I LOVE this name btw. Here's the result:

Here are the two recursive pathways, as promised. Twin ouroboroi. So cool.

The switch can be seen more clearly by superposing the two diagrams. An observation: it is claimed that this is a metastable memory structure. In that case, the switch is meta-metastable. The "hinges" of the switch are Substances (external somatic memory) and Qualities (internal sensory memory), which swing syntactic Forms and semantic Meanings between Integrity and Signs/Symbols, establishing the contact points of the switch, hence justifying MP's claims of the existence of both Move and Merge.

Now, further justifications for all these pretty pictures should be proffered. One is that this is obviously not algebraic or symbolic logical recursion. We're not literally computers, though language is clearly computational. Directed graphs are far more suggestive of the functional neural pathways of our brains imo, being extended spatial structures and all. Another is this quote from "Why Only Us":

As Perani et al. (2011, 16058) observe, there are two dorsal pathways, "one connecting the mid-to-posterior superior temporal cortex with the premotor cortex [purple in plate 2] and one connecting the temporal cortex with Broca's area [blue in plate 2]. It has been [suggested] that [these] two may serve different functions, with the former supporting auditory-to-motor mapping ... and the latter supporting the processing of sentence syntax." There are also two ventral pathways that connect from the region where the "lexicon" is presumed to be, to the front dorsal region. The idea is that these dorsal and ventral fiber tracts together form a complete "ring" that moves information from the lexicon to the areas on the dorsal side where it is used by Merge. The key idea is that this fiber-tract "ring" must be in place in order that syntactic processing work. (WOU, pp. 159, 161.)

This is prescient, as will be shown presently. Yet another reason is that it has iterations, literal directed iterative loops, which presumably animals have and use, and since we're animals, so do we, but with a difference, which will also be examined. Here's another quote from WOU:

The essential point we have made several times is that birdsong never gets more complex than this. While linear chunking is found in birdsong — a warble-tweet sequence can be "chunked" as a single unit of perception or production, called a motif, and while motifs can be iterated, there are no motifs found that in turn contain other motifs — for example, a tweet-trill combination that is itself contained within a warble motif. (WOU, p. 142.) [Emphasis added.]

Integrity is interpreted as representing the "controller" mentioned in WOU, and, even more importantly, Signs/Symbols as the lexicon, which turns out to be at least as important as Merge, if not in some aspects more significant. Btw, Integrity is emphatically NOT the Self, but rather constitutes the core of Self memory and Others memory. Rather, it's the autonomic source and sink of motivation and attention. Animals clearly have this, must have this, but they don't have the lexicon, which is hypothesized as the neurological and mnemonic evolutionary innovation that gives humanity the capacity to read from and write to memory, mediated by symbolic awareness, and hence some limited control over it. This is what caused us to fall out of the eternal present of other animals into history, with our senses and tenses of past, present, and future. Oddly, Chomsky and MP have always taken the lexicon as given. I'm unaware of any in-depth analysis of it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. The literature is immense. Here are two quotes from WOU to support these conjectures:

But how can the (unspecified) controller for the processor know to link these two, rather than instinctively and fly? The only method is to consult the "depth" of the hierarchical structure, or some proxy for it. So the system must resort to an implicit representation to ensure that the relevant dependencies are recovered. The fact that there is some controller that can switch between multiple streams containing words that are arbitrarily far apart, using seemingly hierarchical information, gives this system considerable computational power, of the sort envisioned in a multitape Turing machine. (WOU, p. 117.)

Our general problem is that we understand very little about how even the most basic computational operations might be carried out in neural "wetware". For example, as Randy Gallistel has repeatedly emphasized, the very first thing that any computer scientist would want to know about a computer is how it writes to and reads from memory — the essential operations of the Turing machine model and ultimately, any computational device. (WOU, p. 50.)

This memory structure, or "device" (I guess I should start calling it a "memory system" because that's what it is and I'm just being modest and humble), offers "multiple streams", the aforementioned "switch" between them, "hierarchical [phenomenological] information", all being strongly suggestive of a "multitape Turing machine". In fact, it's even more powerfully reminiscent of a "flip-flip", or bistable multivibrator, an electronic circuit that has two stable states and can be used to store information and is the basic storage element in sequential logic, something I studied in electrical engineering back in the day. However, where the electronic version stores a symbolic 0 or 1 as an electronic off and on, this neuro-mnemonic flip-flop stores syntactic Forms and semantic Meanings, which recursion uses to construct symbolic strings.

This is enough for this post. The next post will push these ideas further, exploring their characterizations in particular.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Walking over
« Last post by Rock100 on June 01, 2020, 03:54:26 AM »
> If sentence 2 is bad what exactly is could be the reason?
I believe one of the reasons could be that any natural languages requires at least a context-sensitive grammar (in algebraic terms) to parse it. It looks like that in your very case the context of the “walk over” idiom usage is not clear enough or wrong.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Walking over
« Last post by Daniel on June 01, 2020, 01:35:34 AM »
"Over" can have two relatively distinct senses: the most basic is "above" (not touching), and the more specific is "across", probably as an extension of the former ("walk over the river" > "cross the river via a bridge" > "walk over the bridge"). There is also another sense where touch is involved, as in "you can run your hand over this fabric to feel its texture", but that seems to also be an extension of the other two.

The reason that your #2 is bad is because there are other prepositions more likely to be used in that scenario, so in contrast "over" isn't a good fit. This is probably an example of blocking (e.g. we have "thief" so "stealer" sounds wrong), rather than "over" not being allowed there. But notice also that your #1 is actually ambiguous (walking across the bridge vs. walking above the bridge-- on another bridge?), so that is important for addressing the other two.

It would be better to give a paraphrase of what sentences #1-3 are supposed to mean if you want more specific feedback.
Semantics and Pragmatics / Walking over
« Last post by mallu on May 31, 2020, 11:11:16 PM »
 Hi Everyone,
I have a question about English spatial preposition over, which is most confusing for a non-native speaker like me.
See the sentence
1)He walked over the bridge
-The sentence is OK ,isnt it?
But how about the sentence
2) He walked over the road
and this too
3)  He walked over the runway- If sentence 2 is bad what exactly is could be the reason?
So, here's how you "fold" an simply directed octagonal graph into a cube. It all starts out innocently enough. The goal is to connect all the dots. The first step is to utilize our old friend, the B-I-V graph segment, but bent at a right angle at Integrity:

The second step is to add Substances and Qualities. So far so good. Here's what it looks like:

The third step is ATAMO: "and then a miracle occurs". Two choice or decision points popped up and the structure bifurcated. This literally blew my mind, a real "HOLY SHIT!!!" moment. I couldn't believe it, didn't believe it, but then I had to believe it because it was true. The picture moved. It came to life. This is when I began to suspect that I may be on to something. Here's what happened:

The fourth step involves adding Sign/Symbols and closing the first two iterative loops back to Integrity. The graph is beginning to tell a story:

We're almost home. I'll save the denouement for the next post.
Regarding what I call "the throne", it's basically a memory processor. It all begins with phenomenology, which is justified by Charles Sanders Peirce's architectonic system, which I use as a "recipe":

Peirce’s Architectonic System
1. Mathematics
2. Philosophy
   which consists of:
   A. Phenomenology
   B. Normative Science
      which consists of:
      i. Aesthetics
      ii. Ethics
      iii. Logic
         which consists of:
         a. Philosophical Grammar
         b. Critical Logic
         c. Methodeutic
   C. Metaphysics
3. Physical [Natural] Science

I used to belong to a Facebook page called "Unreasonable Philosophy", where they loved to rain shit all over me, which I found useful. In particular, a guy named Brandon Evans called me out on how I proposed to represent the contents of memory, which stumped me. He was talking about phenomenology, which he never mentioned, but I finally figured out. From that I finally had a key insight about a dialectically related series of extremely general concepts. This is that series:

{substances [forms (symbols} meanings] qualities).

By dialectically related I mean that for any three concepts, the central term is defined by the two end terms, or oppositions. For example, forms are substances and symbols, or meanings are the intersection of symbols and qualities. These were integrated with Being-Integrity-Value to form the primary structure of the phenomenology:


Since Integrity is at the beginning and end of the indicates it's, yes, recursive, and hence a closed structure, or path recursion, something we'll see more of later (foreshadowing):

There's a lot to recommend in this design. For one thing, as a simple directed graph, it displays a hierarchical growth and development pattern, moving from Integrity to Being, then to Substances, next to Forms, landing finally at Signs/Symbols. The other path goes from Integrity to Value, on to Qualities, through to Meanings, arriving again at Signs/Symbols. (Fwiw, this is my solution to Chalmers' "hard problem of consciousness". Qualia have to come from somewhere, and Value seems to be the most likely culprit. If someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. I don't think it's panpsychism, which makes me grind my teeth. Nor do I think that trying to derive it ontologically from substances, QM, or what have you, is likely to be fruitful. I read both of Penrose and Hameroff's books and I was thoroughly unconvinced by Orch OR, but it was a heroic effort, though hubristic.) I call it a cycle or circuit, because that was my intuition and intent, but it really isn't. It deadends at Signs/Symbols, but otherwise it was overwhelmingly promising. It felt like it should be recursive, somehow, some way. It was like a zen koan: "describe a wheel that turns in two directions at once", or "describe a current that flows in two directions at once", a real head-scratcher. Then, somewhat in desperation, I decided to try taking it to three dimensions. I'd already noticed the coincidence between its number of vertices and the number of vertices of a cube, but for some reason I thought that was just too cute. But it worked, spectacularly. We'll walk through its derivation in the next post.

I hope the shock of the introduction has worn off and we can continue. As an aside, the hypothesized connection between Being and Value is my guess at why quantum phenomena are both particle and wave, i.e. discrete and continuous, or existent and essence. If one can accept Being and Value as both natural and fundamental, then the next step follows rather naturally, which is that they combine to create Integrity, the quality of being whole and complete. In other words, there is a move from the continuity between Being and Value to Being-Integrity-Value. This is where thermodynamics as interpretation enters the picture. I accidentally discovered "Schreinemakers analysis", or method, for constructing topologically correct phase diagrams. Further, the "Morey-Schreinemakers Coincidence Theorem" states that "for every univariant line that passes through the invariant point, one side is stable and the other is metastable. The invariant point marks the boundary of the stable and metastable segments of a reaction line.” This is usually expressed by solid (stable) and dashed (metastable) lines.

A justification for this interpretation is that we are fundamentally thermodynamic organisms, from cells up to bodies, biochemical cycles composed of constrained quantum mechanical wave-particles caught in a gravitational centrifuge (we're constantly gravitationally accelerated). With this simply-connected tripartite structure, one may begin to construct the basic scaffolding of a memory structure using Gibbs' phase rule, "a general principle governing systems in thermodynamic equilibrium," for a single component system, namely memory. This structure has its own derivation, the details of which don't have to concern us here. If y'all want to see it, just ask. Here's the result, W, O, and S representing the stable memory phases of World, Others, and Self, while W', O', and S' standing for the metastable memory phases:
Now, one may claim I'm taking liberties with this interpretation in terms of thermodynamics, and I agree. However, it is justified by the growing understanding of information as a material phenomenon with physical properties. I refer you to the Wikipedia entry for information (with apologies, it's convenient), which also states that "In thermodynamics, information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information", aka a memory structure with storage and processing. I would add that the categories of World, Others, and Self are complete, comprehensive, necessary, and sufficient. I've never been able to find a fourth category, apart from the initial "no phase" condition of more complex organisms with nervous systems. Quoting from the Peirce, Whitehead, Chomsky paper (henceforth PWC):
As mentioned, for an organism to preserve its individuality, and especially for it to reproduce itself, it must be able to cope with and adapt to stimuli, or perturbations, from within itself (homeostasis), from others, both similar to and different from itself (relational equibria), and from the world, its environment (adaptability). This is the role fulfilled by evolutionary natural selection, which promotes organisms on the basis of their survivability and reproducibility of themselves.
The structural stage is now set for the introduction and development of memory storage and processing, which I call, somewhat whimsically, "the throne" and "the crown". I won't address memory storage here. It has its own story, which can be found in PWC. The focus is on memory processing, which addresses the claim regarding UG and LF. This is addressed in the next post.
In a PM, Daniel asks:
I do have a question: what do you want to accomplish? Should I focus more on the idea of poetry, and that you're trying to express yourself? I don't want to discourage that at all. I was instead replying to the ideas from a theoretical perspective on the assumption you were looking from the -- indeed, very challenging -- perspective of trying to have a scientific impact and change perspectives in the field.

In other words, what are my motives and intentions? From introspection and reflection, it's always seemed to be a kind of compulsion. It's not like I've ever had any choice or control, at least until lately. The ideas kept building and the motivations to work on them kept getting stronger and stronger. It's been at turns enormous fun and nerve-wrackingly terrifying. The breakthroughs have been ecstatic, some of the greatest emotional experiences of my life, up to and including the birth of my daughter, whose 17th birthday is today. What am I trying to accomplish? What I've stated so far. I went hunting for UG and I think I've bagged it. I wanted to see if I could close the epistemic, or explanatory, gap and I believe I have. I knew there had to be a solution to the mind-body problem because, duh, we have minds and bodies. There had to be some solution, somewhere, somehow. Do I want to shake up linguistics? Why not? But I don't think I'll ever have that chance, largely because I'm nobody from nowhere. I have no institutional standing. I have a degree (math), experience doing science (undergraduate fellowship in nonlinear dynamics at UT Austin, got my name in Nature), have done a little bit of independent creative research work ("A Novel Visual Model of Electron Configuration"), all of which you can find at This has always been my big project, something that's kept me going, whether I wanted to or not. I've been astonishingly reckless in its pursuit tbh, in a the-ends-justify-the-means kind of way. One always has visions of hitting it big, of being discovered, but I'm beginning to doubt that's in the cards, though I've not given up. I just sent a letter to Prof. Bill Seager of UToronto. He wrote a quite good survey paper on panpsychism (which I've always reacted against) and also the SEP article on the same. He's into philosophy of mind so I emailed him. I doubt I'll ever hear back. I stumbled onto his paper by googling Chomsky and Whitehead. So I did this work essentially for the hell of it, gratuitously, because I was having fun, and it was an obsession. What else can I say?
Thanks for the note Daniel. Timing is getting really weird, pretty much like everything else in the world at the moment.
panini, your choice. I'll proceed regardless. An exegesis is in order anyway. Plus I can use the practice. It should be unsurprising, I think, that one has to return to first principles (principals?) and processes to describe the very thing and process that invents, well, all linguistic phenomena, not to mention everything else the body gets up to. To cut to the chase just a bit, Universal Grammar is very well named (Chomsky didn't name it; it's been around for awhile). By "grammar" I'm talking about the principles and parameters of expressive bodies, which include immanent particular languages but transcend them. Chomsky describes UG as "a system of pure structure." I agree but would add one word: "memory", i.e. "a system of pure memory structure." I think this may be that structure but I could, of course, be wrong. It has pretty much everything one needs for a human universal grammar and its instantiation as a faculty of language, which I'll explain as I move through the derivation of this proposed memory structure. Your patience is acknowledged and appreciated.
(Just an organizational note: the forum's spam filter caught Poemworld's latest reply (a false positive), so panini's immediate reply, which appears to have just followed it, was written before it was approved and visible.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10