Reply to ways to expand worldview

By possibilities,
Sure, otherwise yes, take forever. That's the idea, most of the contents of consciousness need to be continually re-represented so that the map formed in relation to those contents are increasingly reaching higher levels of integrity with reality, that is, not only on the level of accuracy but on the level of creativity. The former pertains to alignment between consciousness interpretation and actuality, the latter pertains to consciousness creation and possibility. Here's something I wrote for you just now. I wrote it in about two minutes while playing the pokies in a casino (I won $5 but lost $500, I know I'll win next time around though). This should expand your understanding of what it means to understand. The writing is incomplete and a work in progress but it should provide enough stimulation that it aids in building your thoughts on the subject. This depth is analogous to the reinterpretation that needs to take place with all phenomena and experiences. To never see a human in the same way again, to never see the sky, trees, civilisations, history, brains, ideas, animals, oceanic planes and mountains in the same way again. Its in line with what I've described as my life purpose, to continually strive to expand and grow my consciousness: ---- What does it mean to understand? In attempting to understand any one concept in my mind it seems Iʼm attempting to form a very specific kind of understanding in the encompassment of what follows from an increasingly greater understanding of any one concept, such as a mathematical one like Force = Mass X Acceleration. This specific understanding is a relational one, effect A leads to consequence B. Relational understanding is thus not only the subject of my enquiry here it is my argument that it is the sum total of any possible understanding and its limits. Otherwise expressed as relational reasoning, relational understanding can be intuitively grasped in the observation of how any one idea forms in the mind and the limits upon which that idea takes ahold and is understood. Limits here are synonymous simultaneously to the capacity of the mind and the external world, the greater the former the more understanding is isomorphic to comprehending the external, or rather, the entire nature of reality. This exploration will delve into the former, or more specifically, how the mind builds understanding. For example, let me provide a demonstration with respect to pattern recognition: 122333444455555. The pattern here of course is that the number corresponds to the amount of symbols that will be used and that this use is contained to being only used to describe the number of units of the number itself. The kind of relation that this would refer to as is *repetitive self similarity*, otherwise known as a pattern. So a pattern is merely the expression of qualities of repetitive self similarity. There are all sorts of relations we can make between things, patterns reflect the kind of relation that refers to similarity among qualities with respect to repetition. Every other kind of relation explores every other kind of relation outside the context of repetitive similarity. Relational reasoning is the capacity that thus leads to me being capable of perceiving any kind of pattern such as the one noted above, this is because the differentiation of relationships deals with the subordinate structures of any one pattern, that is, the noticing of any similarity before a pattern emerges, the latter which is merely comparing elements over timeframes (in the context of perception) of similar relations with other frames of potentially similar relations. In so saying as much, if anything perhaps I could refer to a pattern as a higher order relation one has noticed. Mathematical reasoning in the context of relational reasoning then is constructed in such a way that because the mind is forced to compare among relations which would otherwise only intuitively occur in relational streaming by itself, thereʼs a higher likelihood that higher order relations, being patterns, will emerge in the context of mentalization. The perception of a reliable pattern occurs, I believe, because there is comparatively a higher integration of information in the mind, itʼs thus the ordering of subordinate relations in the mind to the point of generating a “mental picture” synonymous to what we refer to as understanding. Otherwise subordinate here doesnʼt mean less than of course. Furthermore, in the context of mathematical reasoning, the deeper one goes with their reasoning about relations here the more likely I could realise formulas other and or related to the one in the scope of my contemplations like the one I noted above, Force = Mass x Acceleration, perhaps even correct those formulas and or make them better. My play with the formulas for example to me seems to reflect my minds attempt at integrating the corresponding information of those formulas, integration of which relies on the connecting of various relations, ergo, relational reasoning. This connection and level therein reflects the level of relational understanding and in doing so, total understanding possible relative to the biological constraints of any human mind created by nature. To build any mind from the bottom up then should be by my calculation in the comprehension and deepening of relations regarding any one concept, which could be any possible perception perceivable by a mind at any point in time or better, comparisons between stretches of time. Mathematical reasoning here would merely reflect the formalisation of relations into patterns reflected as symbols, like the well known example noted above, Force = Mass X Acceleration. Thus math is a reflection of the end point achieved with relational reasoning, thus further support of my argument that relational reasoning should be the beginning of my or even potentially anyone's inquiry in relation to building any good understanding of anything, such as myself. In fact I might argue that depth of possible relational meaning achievable via any length of contemplation here can be measured by simply two mental events. One, the level of contrast presently being presently experienced by the mind about a stimulus whether in memory or simply present imagination. Two, the perspective on that contrast, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Organised perception is thus to meaningful induction and disordered perception is to unreliable induction. Accurate knowledge of the environment is to the former and inaccurate knowledge the latter, in so saying as much, the level of organisation of contrast behind my own capacity to relate information here is what informs and generates the qualitative endpoints of perspectives achieved and in doing so, can easily be correlated with my capacity to infer functions from inductions. From these relational beginnings, we have the beginnings of the makings of any kind of map or meaning map of any kind of phenomenon whatsoever, awareness of which, especially by a consciousness that seeks greater integrity with reality here, describes the relationship between the knowledge of a phenomenon or rather, the neural map of a phenomenon, and the desire to improve the map about that phenomenon, be it some simple element, sets of elements or diverse abstract categories; anything. In sum here, contrast informs a perspective, awareness recognises the map of relational understanding being formed, and the aspects of consciousness that deal with improvement then seek to evolve those contents to higher levels. Thus, Iʼve now stumbled upon a novel invention in my expression of understanding about understanding here, that is, simply, M = IM, or rather, Map = ʼs improve map. M = IM has a few assumptions embedded within it, it supposes that there is something that improves its map of something, such as an artificial intelligence, in this instance however Iʼm referring to my own consciousness. M = IM can also be useful when measured against M (i.e. sets of goals) that some consciousness has created or wishes to create, the latter which leads to an expansion of comprehension to areas of individual agency beyond mere external understanding to that of creating maps that are then externalised. It is the leap from intelligence to creativity or rather as it pertains to this conversation with myself, from relational understanding to creativity. For example, if I'm working with a rubric on understanding awareness or even something like critical thinking or even building a house I can move between this loop (M = IM) and M (whatever that may encompass) where a new mirror reflection, which feeds the informational loop, is continuously created on the data and as a result of that, a self generated improvement feedback loop which arises, arguably, as a result of our evolutionary drives (we're apparently naturally driven to want to improve, or perhaps this is merely the agency behind intelligence inside consciousness or is consciousness created by intelligence or some other expression better?). Its a simple formula and a simple step but its potential for engineering self augmentation seems endless. What is a map? In this context I would describe a map as a set of relations which share distinct enough patterns that they can be separated by other maps within the mind of a person. New maps can be formed about other maps, other maps can inspire new and better maps. Map here is simply a term to encompass relations in patterns and patterns stemming from relations, the degree of map resolution can probably be measured on approximately three levels which probably reflect the level of mental power achieved with respect to the ability to create said maps and communicate them. These levels will be described in the context of the degree of pattern recognition achieved with respect to a stimulus, they are as follows: (1) identification (2) comparison and (3) formation: a. IDENTIFICATION: Tertiary pattern recognition such as: 12233344445555?
b. COMPARISON: Secondary pattern recognition such as: ABBCCCDDDDFFFF?
c. FORMATION: Primary pattern recognition Formation describes the extrapolations that can be made from the initial sets of patterns gleaned from the data which in the case of say “12233344445555?”, could include but is not limited to some of the following observations: - Numbers is to order, when the numbers are not ordered this means that something is either amiss in perception or phenomenon
- Things have an ascending and descending nature to them
- Thus look at things not from just their time and space but their spectrum of time and space Formation is higher order relational reasoning where at least two units of consciousness, informationally speaking, have been synthesised to such an extent that they're able to be simultaneously represented up to the second level where further relational patterns are able to be differentiated at the third level. It could be argued that one can use this as a simple algorithm to enhance ones understanding of any one concept, and following it in that order from identification to the formation of extrapolations from those initial relational ideas pertaining to information perceived. In fact anyone whoʼs lived at least 21 years would have seemingly endless material in their memories to continually discover new insights through the continuous conversion between retrodiction and prediction. This describes, in part, a working solution to using relational reasoning as a means of beginning and expanding understanding of any one idea in the mind. M = IM as expressed in following say the above algorithm is a good example of its exposition, the continuous refinement of our maps of and in doing so, improvement in our actions to accrue a better relationship with the external world. Here is M = IM expressed from the perspective of its subordinate structures in the context of a consciousness that seeks its refinement, an algorithm computed in the absence of imperative other than the assumption of one, such as with respect to the case regarding myself being a human, it would be surrounding survival perhaps. However motivations, evolutionary and otherwise offer a separate enquiry. Overall, in answer to the initial question, to understand is to seek to improve ones map understanding given that, improvements in understanding supersede any capacity to understand at all, and thus the desire to improve or at least the capacity therein is ancillary to understanding, especially any relational understanding. K > MG = M1 > MG
M1 > MG = L > D.W
K = knowledge (===> the sum of interconnected relations, A is to B) > = of MG = map generator (I.e. The human brain - what we see, hear, touch... all of that which we experience including memory)
M1 = mastery L = level D.W = differentiated will (a revised definition of the term free will I came up with a while ago which I don't mind if anyone steals) D.W = C.I
This is regulated best by: M = IM > D
M = map
IM = improve map (The following should be implied by M = IM so it's logically unnecessary though here it is)
> = until D = death Also:
CI = M1 > IM M1 > IM = I.G Where: CI = causal influence
IG = intelligence generator (inner/outer) So L > D.W should generally be highly proportional to IG and thus optimised fulfilment and ongoing maximised utility of IM.