Static Pattern Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Reflexive Reactions and Unconditioned Consciousness, Part One

Chandraliberski — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:26:19 -0000

Thank you for sharing this Joel. I agree there is a difference in behaviors of those that are innate vs. learned. I feel it is more difficult to truly understand those that are innate. Learned behaviors are easier to draw a parallel to where they came from. Often times we simply "blow off" our innate behaviors without trying to understand them because they are innate and therefore cannot be changed so why bother understanding. I am a "why" person so I (innately) take a different approach and try to understand why I am the way I am. :-)

Re: Technological Announcements

ewH — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:47:33 -0000

Sounds exciting; I am looking forward to reading your first volume and hearing some of your initial thoughts once you start using F#

Cheers,
-ewH

Re: Resonant Knowledge

WaltDe — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:30:45 -0000

Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe

Re: Towers of Knowledge, Part One

wholesomedick — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:31:26 -0000

Hey, syndicated your feed on livejournal. Good stuff.

http://syndicated.livejourn...

Re: Resonant Knowledge

Joel.Kotarski — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:40:46 -0000

Great wonder - I appreciate it because it taps into and enhances a parallel thread of thought I've been having as applies to the fundamental question: What effects is SPE trying to induce in the individual? Sort of a deeper 'why' question that has long alluded me. (That question will be explored more when I join the RK and TowersOfKnowledge threads later) (THREAD LEFT HANGING UNTIL LATER)

Anyway, the individual modelled as a private mixture of thought establishes a System, which has subtle effects induced from that knowledge (and system effects as noted); however, when we start talking about operations (which are at the point when actions take place over time), we have moved into a Process. The System + the Process forms a Solution -- it is an open question to what degree resonance itself affects the Process part of the solution. The channel (the interface / contract for performing operations) is usually pre-defined for an individual by a level of agreement in the domain it is happening in. Those we usually call Artists or those at the pinnacle or edge of their field can actively participate in defining those operations.

This of course is dry and technical, so let me move into a little more organic feel for what I'm expressing: The degree of resonance an individual experiences within their private domain (private mixture) can often have an impedance mismatch between the operations required to cause effects in the domain. Let me give an example: An individual might be extremely resonant with ancient military tactics, such that this individual could be one of the most fascinating authors on the subject that the world has seen this century. Yet, they are going through an adult literacy program as they dropped out of school at age 12. And --this-- is the sticky part of the equation. It is a prerequisite for this individual to conquer a native language in written form (reading and writing it as operations) for them to have the ability of a great author. This is a purely mechanical operation -- once mastered, we may see them weave the written word as powerfully as we see them wield the spoken word as they enchant us with stories and knowledge (for this person, they are still actively participating in the oral tradition of passing knowledge).

What I am getting at is operations are extremely constrained by agreed upon mental forms. The 'ideal operation' is one in which the energy of the resonance with the resonant knowledge is not dissipated by the operations required to --cause effects-- in the outside world.

So, abilities (operations) are completely relevant to the satisfaction of this process. Just as plants have harnessed the energy of the sun, we must find a way to harness the energy of resonance.

Wow - this question got me so juiced I am practically creating a blog entry out of my response. I suggest we split this three ways - continue talking here (comments) on this topic over time, pick it up in interpersonal dialogue, and I'll spawn a new blog entry on the crucial threads.

But what is needed soon is the ever-important post on Operat(or/ion)s and Transform(ation)s. It is a recent theory I've come up with that will help conquer this puzzle of the interface between the private and the public (internal resonance versus resonant expressed creations).
UPDATE 5/2008: Part one on Operator/Transform finally posted (only took two years :):

Re: Resonant Knowledge

Galtenberg — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:06:58 -0000

Going off your statement that humans are private mixtures of knowledge components (and resonance), I wonder... Are abilities (operations) also primarily knowledge-based?

Is my power of operation and transformation based on what I know and what certain energy I feel for something? Is that the definition of ability?

Since every human being is identified mainly by what they can do (and what they have done) and likely will do, I wondered if abilities are in any way relevant to the discussion of knowledge and resonance - if this first-order concern is really a first-order concern.

Re: Static Pattern blog

Joel.Kotarski — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:30:01 -0000

Instead of addressing questions above turn for turn, in a general sense I want to address a more fundamental question about what engineering is: Engineering is simply about leveraging hard-earned knowledge in the form of science, mathematics, and their products in the form of technology to meet human needs. Engineering is about leveraging knowledge (hard earned in the laboratory -- such as science, derived in the halls of academia -- such as mathematics) and experience (empirical hypotheses, best practices, heuristics, etc.) to produce results.

I am bringing up the point that there is the body of knowledge and experience that defines the academic science, mathematics, empirical conclusions, etc. that Static Pattern Engineering can and will utilize to varying degrees to define its core; however, the burden is not on the field to define those at the outset -- only to use them. This is not a clever parlor trick to avoid having to work -- it simply defines that the work is less about discovery and more about producing results.

Since it is a new field, I often find myself getting pulled back into the trenches of trying to define a new Science -- and at the boundaries of the field, I wholeheartedly and unfortunately believe that this is true for SPE; however, at the opposing boundary is simply the results to be produced.

So, addressing now specifically what you ask: I think obsession with intricate mathematics in SPE would lead to folly - some of the most amazing accomplishments in the physical engineering fields are leveraging the high-level relationships or laws we have found. A fascinating example is Statics in mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering: Equipped with Newton's second and third laws, an engineering student learns how to leverage these via several tools to arrive at the knowledge of how to design a small or massive structure that can remain stable for years to come.

Another good example of making this important choice to avoid minutia can be found in one of the core knowledge components of chemical engineering: reaction engineering. Designing a reactor at its core involves the leveraging of only a few equations -- not complex mathematics. This is due to hard work by pioneers in the field reducing it to its elegant set of rules. It is breathtaking and inspiring that something so complex can be reduced to something so simple.

So I want to come back to the cleavage point that separates the field as a form of engineering rather than a new science (and using your forest versus trees analogy): It will focus on the usage of trees where that applies, the structure of trees only in the case where it is essential to talk about their structure, and more often than not it will be leveraging the patterns of trees themselves to produce the desired effects.

Re: Static Pattern blog

Galtenberg — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:19:19 -0000

When you use the term 'engineering' in your first paragraph to represent application of mathematical laws inherent in the physical universe (via 'mathematical constructs'), and then you use the term 'Static Pattern Engineering' at the end of the first section to label the trichotomy of [physical, virtual, cognitive] that your work proposes to expose, does this imply that the core product of SPE will be a mathematical treatise on this tri-fold universe?

When I first read this entry, I came away thinking that the focus was to be on possible manifestations within and transformations between the three realms... Now after re-reading, and after our later discussions, I can't shake the impression that the conceptual and pragmatic applications of this project will have to be subservient, ultimately, to the mathematical analysis required of the underlying sub-structure of the realms. Is that true? Or am I taking the 'math' reference too far?

It seems like a forest vs. trees approach. Calling it engineering -- for it to stand-up, as in construction, or compile, as in programming -- means that SPE focuses fundamentally on the atoms of carbon in tree seedlings, so ultimately trees grow and you get a forest... when maybe what you really want is to take a hike or find raw materials to build a house (the atoms of carbon, those lower granularity mathematical constructs, being assumed as functioning, not needing to be studied).

I just wonder... Is engineering, by this mathematical definition, required *at all*, as a component in transformation between physical, cognitive, and/or virtual states? I'm thinking of very non-mathematical acts, like artistic expressions. You /could/ say that this, too, is a mathematical act, just like writing a computer program is mathematical because it runs on a grandiose adding machine (the microprocessor), but still... the only mathematics needed in an artistic expression are the fundamental working of the human mind...

And you're not saying that SPE requires an explication of the laws of the human mind, are you? If so, wow good luck - you and 50,000 other academics are trying to crack that nut (when I'm guessing it's the neuroscientists and geneticists that'll break the code). Or, does SPE operate at a higher granularity of mathematics/engineering (ie, higher granularity constructs), than the root workings of the human mind? Or, even further, can you do SPE without *any* mathematics (eg, artistic expression/transformation)... hence, without any engineering (classic engineering)?

To summarize, using my previous metaphor, will SPE be focusing, in its first iteration, primarily on the uses of trees, the structure of trees, or the patterns of forests? And how much math will be involved?

Re: Static Pattern blog

Joel.Kotarski — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 02:55:12 -0000

Absolutely correct - with a slight of hand I had quickly introduced the 'virtual realm' in a context which could be commonly grasped by everyone from the last century (i.e., 1900-1999); however, very insightfully, you point out that the virtual domain is far beyond what can be manifest simply by that made possible by the computer. So you caught the fact that I was making an example from the last century seem like a definition, so I want to clear that up:

In my exposition, I was defining recent _movements_ and incredible breakthroughs from the last century that have revealed the interwoven nature of these three domains; however, long before the human mind discovered and explicitly stated laws of cognitive science or created the first semiconductor based computer we have seen manifestations in the virtual and cognitive domains. More generically, the virtual domain includes physical matter which has a noticeable degree of human thought embedded in it. In fact, any act of engineering in the physical world has a _degree of virtuality_ to it, which I'll discuss later.

The use of the term 'working model' was based on the fact that during the middle of the last century, some eminent scientists used our somewhat limited grasp of human cognition, which has only recently blossomed (and continues to blossom) only in the last decade to create an incredible 'virtual' manifestation in the computer which (although it has evolved) has proven so powerful and elegant that we have used nearly the same model to accomplish tremendous feats of intellect. What may another 'working model' which is based on our current understanding bring about? What if it became possible to succintly express human thought into something beyond bits and bytes - as the possibility of quantum computing offers - or into components that go beyond simply recording these into boolean logical structures? I offer this as a fascination point rather than a debating argument.
But, once again, I thank you and bow to you for pointing out that which I glossed over as a slight of hand -- the 'virtual domain' which is essential to SPE technology, deserves much discussion and less of a slight of hand. I intend to discuss it much more thoroughly in future posts -- thanks for the feedback!

(As for the 'visualization' part of the mind, absolutely!)

Re: Static Pattern blog

Galtenberg — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:48:09 -0000

Is it fair to say the virtual realm has been around actually longer than just this past century (even tho we now realize it thanks to the 'virtual realities' the computer manifests)? Do things like papers, blueprints, textbooks, designs, etc also qualify?

Can a definition for 'virtual' be what you described above: a working model? And if so, can the 'visualization' part of the mind also be considered virtual, separate from more purely cognitive functions?