Polymorphic (Object Oriented) Mind
Object Oriented Mind
My first textbooks were for my algorithm course. I designed the course too, at Metro State. Later I wrote textbooks for other computer courses, at various schools, that were basically algorithms used to help learn the programming in those courses. Reverse Engineering the Universe was the beginning of my quest for the algorithms of the universe. The books that followed, as I recognize now, were studies of algorithms in different areas.
Notice that in algorithm textbooks the pictures are part of or maybe most of the argument for what we are talking about on this page. Check out Mary Loomis texts as examples. She is the most accepted algorithm textbook writer. My algorithm texts were much more that way; the pictures where most, if not all, of the argument. Note that my textbooks were successful in teaching algorithms and programming in general.
So now I am writing about the algorithms of the universe (from some kind of reverse engineering) and the importance of the pictures, as part of the argument, is still there. It is sometimes paramount. Object Oriented Mind is just an algorithm textbook about the mind - instead of the computer.
Demythologizing Jung
Demythologizing and deconstruction is the territory of the post-structuralist. But reconstruction should be the goal of such endeavors. Here the deconstruction of Jung's archetypes is reconstructed into a meaningful, workable, and useful concept of how the mind works.
There are two sides to Jung's "deeper" works. There is the descriptions of what can only be called "object oriented processing" in the mind. It describes key element of how object oriented programs work. Then there is the explanation of what this processing means though analysis by myth; which is partly a myth based justification for the Archetypes object based processing methodology being correct.
There are two arguments for using myth this way. First the myth is a way of describing how the mind works placing personalized concepts into a discussion of complex ideas. At that point in our literate experience, this was a good argument for folks who all had an understanding of the myth and what it meant.
A second argument was that the myth came from or was part of our mental make-up. It expressed the deeper inner mind, as interpreted by the ancients, so it should be considered when solving psychological problems. The myth and myth terms provided an understanding of things not seen in the world outside the mind.
The problem with myth as a basis for anlysis is that somewhere between the 50's and 60's we quit teaching much about myth. And when we did, almost no-one took the course. Somewhere in the late 60's they brought back the horoscope, which is myth. It seems it was all about the stars now and somehow real. But myth was not believed by anyone or at least most everyone, So describing Dianna and Hermes said nothing to the new generation. Also the myth seemed like an early version of soap operas. And the stories were ridiculous.
So we saw the object oriented processing as a real factor in mental processing; but we felt we needed to ignore the myth in Jung as is was now a burden to real understanding.
Beginning with the Structural Basics
The process of understanding conversation is to compare the text of a sentence with contextual information we have. The question is: “How do we store and retrieve the context in our grammar?” It is not stored using relational algebra, which is the method we use to store computer database data for efficient computer store and retrieve mechanisms. Relational data storage is not fast enough and it is not broad enough in its combinatorial strength to explain the minds process.
Our minds compiler is more polymorphic than structured. Object orientation, of course, is the child of our polymorphism. But being polymorphic is definitely the more important part of our mental object orientation. One of the main parts is our minds ability to change the object designation on an entity at any stage. An object is not defined completely and then frozen. This helps with the extremely rapid retrieval of words and facts by the mind.
The mind also has a way of producing mental objects out of the interpretation of external information. A fresh encounter with the outer world is first analyzed by a neural network. The information is carried by nerves from the sensing point. These nerve signals are then filtered through neural networks. See: The Thunk.
The archetype [Jung] for that area of mental processing is the link with the conscious. From this link, a memory object can be extended from the archetype (as base class). Then the extended archetype layer becomes the output layer of the neural network. Note the archetype layer serves both as the interpretation function determining layer (how the input is interpreted) and, in the instantiation of the object from the base class extended to a memory object from (based on the neural interpretation). Thus the archetypes [abstract classes] are the basis of meaning as the real [memory] object is extended from one or more archetypes. Thus the archetype molds the thought into meaning.
This is a probabilistic process that is under constraints. The process is probabilistic but the constraints provide limitations so the result is controlled by these limitations producing a meaningful pattern. Thus the constraints prevent dissipation, and encourage meaningful results. The constraints in the young child are the archetypes. As we grow older our minds develop aggregate (abstract) classes that are useful as though they were archetypes. These constrain the mental process so that meaningful patterns result from the interpretation process [Harmonics of Nature].
The features of the archetypal classes, relating to the attributes and methods of a class, are then the same as the neural network activation functions. With input (our nerves send these signals about our present context) these features are used to interpret the signals (our internal program adapts them to interpretation of the input signals). When applied to a memory object in our conscious mind, the features (activation functions) are used in a way that they make the memory object useful and meaningful in our thought process. Remember the class here is a (hidden) layer of the neural network not a single node. Also an abstract class can be extended into a memory object (real class) but cannot be instantiated itself (to a real memory object).
The Shadow
The Shadow and the Archetypes are our link to reality. The Shadow is our Thunk. We need to understand how this link works so we can base our analysis and development on Reality rather than on Theory. Part of capturing Reality is the fact that the Shadow acts as our Dealer also.
Demonstrating Befo Processing
In the pictures below the Shadow Class Items are represented as Buckets.
Words are linked to a chain of meaning (patterns of meaning) from the polymorphic process. The polymorphic mind can "see" these relationships, just enough to create meaning in our thoughts.
This is like shadow puppets dancing on a screen. As they pass through each other we can see “pattern or not” quickly. When there are enough pattern matches we have the understanding of the link. The patterns make sense (in other words: form their own combined pattern).
Meaning - from Patterns - The Real Basis of Processing Language
Afta or Archetype Processing
Meaning - from Patterns - The Real Basis of Processing Language
Polymorphic Interpreting
This is an extremely powerful way for the mind to recognize patterns very quickly. The Archetypes, themselves, are not instantiated, so they cannot be seen; they are part of the "subconscious" - the befo; in the shadow.
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated “in themselves”. Each Archetype, is an abstract class. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in the polymorphic configuration. Archetypes are in the “shadow” (sub-conscious or befo [meaning not instantiated]) of a conscious symbol, which is extended into the memory object. The Archetype fulfills the meaning of the symbol in thought. The Archetype molds a thought into meaning [Jung]. The Shadow (an Archetype) is the Archetype of Archetypes (the shadow of all shadows; and the base class of all base classes for our compiler).
Meaning - The Real Basis of Processing Language
This is the Key to the Process:
The establishment of a new node with its definition (Meaning) based on the series of extended nodes (memory objects) linked to this Archetype.
A New Memory Object is Instantiated
This is the Mind's default processing
This is how Meaning works in memory - as formulated by Jung. The Archetypes are the center of Meaning; and are attached to the mental memory objects (through extension), and to the earth (through the Shadow Archetype) [an interpretation of Jung]. The sum total of all that (extended memories and the Archetypes) is what I call the context (the context is the transcendental, or transcendence is contextual[DJH] - this is the room we live in).
To understand language I picture that there is some kind of probability holes that words can fit into [per Jung]. But the structure must be surrounded by applicable memories that are somehow linked to the memory holes [Archetypes] so the content can be matched, quickly, to the contexts we already have. This matching starts tentatively. As the probability of success in interpretation goes up, the context and content are arrived at smoother, faster, and with immediate links to [context and] meaning.
Old Lane
Understand that the words have meaning through the context of extended Archetypes. The polymorphic links between the objects extended from an Archetype (or set of Archetypes) provide the meaning to the text. The sentence itself gains meaning through the polymorphic links in the mind’s context [including any real memories and the links between them and the Archetypes]. This is how we have meaning. This is not truth based; there is no time and no methodology for a truth table. But it needs to be “true”; that is "real" ("real" is a better understanding of our conceptual basis of the process - mindfulness). The formation of patterns of linked objects (under the control of the Archetypes) creates the sense of meaning. When combined into stories that are related to our narrative, a sense of consciousness is recognized.
Any real language is based on context rather than being based on atomic and immutable words and sentences. And how can we interpret this kind of language? All of the language on earth - everyone's language - except that of structuralist philosophers - are contextually based. I would say that all languages are based on context and everyone (except a structuralist) is quite capable of interpreting statements made in such a language. The problem is that the interpretation of the listener is then not guaranteed to be exactly the intent of the originator. But can it ever be?
This is the (Internal) Context and the Conscious View of the Mind
This is the Context
This is also the Conscious View of the Mind
Consciously Observed Portion of the Polymorphic Database
(Not all of this is Visualized at One Time)
(The Buckets [Set of Shadow Objects] is not Visualized Consciously)
This is the rules of real discourse, because language as it was created by our predecessors (and there are a large number of separate languages that all follow these rules) is not structural; language is contextual. The reason it is contextual is that our polymorphic minds are contextual [and the universe is actually harmonically contextual]. Context is always polymorphic [real context]. That [polymorphism] is how "it" [the context] becomes meaning. You should say communication is based on meaning rather than truth. Then the context is the transcendental. We understand contextually. The meaning is the only ultimate "truth" [again - "real" is a better understanding of this conceptual basis point]. And this meaning cannot be absolute (the absoluteness that the philosophers desired). Things change beyond our control. What was true [real] ten minutes ago is no longer true [real]. After all it is polymorphic (polymorphic means the solutions are manifold or harmonic). [Note, again, how "real" is a better basis for our discussion than “truth".]
Ramanujan
Ramanujan: “An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God.”
Heath: “There is an important distinction here. We can have meaning, as an abstraction; but we cannot have truth, as an abstraction.
“Then, for me, a concept has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God.”
See also: Ramanujan, The Thunk.
Demythologizing Jung
Object Oriented Mind
This short book includes excerpts of chapters from Reverse Engineering the Universe via Post Structuralism.
***************************************
This is how the Computer Processes Information
Three Contexts of Computer Processing
Running - ALU | Registers | Program Listing
The Heart of the Computer
Processing - Control Unit | ALU | Main Computer Bus
Typical ALU Processing
ALU Cycle
Single Process - C Bis | A Bus | B Bus
These views of computer processing are from: The Animated Computer Book [Buy it - there is more information on the details of computer systems here than you will find anywhere].
Computer Process: FETCH, DECODE, EXECUTE.
The Above Particular Process in the Mind: SEEK, COMPARE, INSTANTIATE.
*************************************
Object Oriented Mind
#AI, #ArtificialIntelligence,