Let no one know what you read, what you watch.

Always consume information alone.  To prevent tracking of your mind.  And what is there to explain?  Chaos.  In all its forms.  That is what there is to explain.  Networks.  Languages that describe problems (that which we don’t understand).  And dynamics that arise from those languages.  Situations.  Descriptions.  And dynamics that arise from the descriptions. (from 2004)

Let no one know what you read, what you watch.

Word Blends and Dreams

[to Douglas Hofstadter]

I was thinking about how you suggest that word blends are evidence of competition underneath the surface.  And then just now I was observing my dreams in that in-between place as I was not-quite-asleep, not-quite-awake and it seemed to me that dreams exist in a pre-competition place, or maybe a sans-competition place.  In my dreams I float around concepts that don’t have acceptable names for waking-life discourse, concepts like {the wild place} or {the big and wild} and it’s only when I have to stuff those unnamed mental areas into words like “Denver” or “Alaska” that the competition is forced to completion, that the under-the-surface must come to some surface.  And it seems like that surface is discourse, whatever terms I use to interact with others.  (And not just word-oriented discourse, either, but behavioral discourse.)  But in dreams I’m in some kind of mode where (maybe because I know I won’t be talking to other people, probably for some deeper type of brain-out-of-gear-ness, but…some kind of mode where) I know I won’t be needing to take that competition to completion…where I know I will stay under [the surface of [whatever]], such that there’s a way for (the spark of?) my consciousness to float around my concept-net with more freedom, less constraint.

Your “analogy as the core of cognition” talk caught my attention partly because I’ve been thinking about how I would make the brain in C, from a data-structures point of view.  The above ideas are what my mind was thinking as I woke up this morning, and they fit with some more concrete ideas I’ve been tossing around while I’m awake, and I think dovetail with some of what I’ve been able to hear and read from you.

A while back (2001-2002) I put together a pair of neural-net-like things and one of the features they had was a waking period and a sleeping period.  I was reading Consciousness Explained at the time and Dennett’s analogy of consciousness (and then more particularly dreaming) being like playing “psychiatrist”, the game where one person leaves the room, then comes back in with the supposed goal of using yes-no questions to determine a) which person in the room had a particular dream-story and b) what that dream-story was (except all the people in the room do is answer yes to questions ending in a letter from a-m and no to questions ending in n-z, except when to do so would contradict an earlier answer)…but then with the idea that the wildness of dreams is due in part to having more noise than usual on the sensory channels to the brain such that our brain has less of the outside world to use when answering our [yes/no] questions to it, so the information of the dream’s reality-landscape is wilder.  Anyway, in this pair of neural nets I emulated that concept by having a waking phase where the two entities could talk to each other, and a sleeping phase where they continued doing cognitive activities, but their external inputs were randomized…just to see if their thoughts during those phases resembled, to me, waking and sleeping phases from my own experience.

But now, with your talk about word-blends and competition, and the half-awake/half-asleep thoughts that I was having 10 minutes ago, I’m thinking that in some concrete model of consciousness the sleeping phase could [also] be characterized by a disengaging of part of the discursive function, a disengaging of some aspects of the storytelling function, so that consciousness could [float] around those unnamed concept-areas without needing to complete (or engage in) the competition that you speak of resulting in word blends that is apparent when we do [waking?] discourse.

Just thoughts, and now that I’m more awake they’re less interesting!  =)

Word Blends and Dreams

Red and Blue

The eye of red sees the whole of blue and the eye of blue sees the whole of red. The whole of what red sees is blue and the whole of what blue sees is red.

The union of red and blue is a universe from which I individuate two participants who completely determine each other’s purpose for being, who completely determine each other’s measure of value.

To outside observers, the utilities of red and blue are completely arbitrary, meaningless, without extent—but to red, blue is perfection, and to blue, perfection is red.

Everything that is not the one thing is what coaxes the one thing into being; that everything hosts, justifies, and cushions the being of the one thing. Conversely, it is the act of the formation of the one thing that gives direction to everything else.

source code from 2002

brainstorm notes:

Red and Blue