tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69644990181499966582024-02-07T06:22:36.742+02:00Vassilis Toulias' Personal BlogI'm an Electric & Electronics Engineer with a Computer Science major at NTUA, and an MBA at ALBA, working as a Project Portfolio Manager at AXA in Greece. Concurrently, I'm trying to complete my theory about cognition and the way the human brain works: <b>Noesis Theory</b> (noesistheory.com). Here you will find a glimpse of my personal thoughts and interests.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-54987488438572799272020-05-10T17:47:00.001+03:002020-05-10T17:47:42.445+03:00How a quantum mechanics system is similar to a raytracing algorithm and also to the human brain<div dir="ltr">This phenomenon of when you measure a particle it collapses from a wave to a particle and stays that way kind of reminds me of raytracing & polygon rendering.<div><br></div><div>It's like the universe always starts with raytracing, because it just follows the principles, the rules of the universe and is very abstract & generic; not specialized to the situation.</div><div>Like it's trying to conserve computational power (even though I know raytracing is harder for computers. But come on, this is the universe we're talking about, it has "invented" the physics rules so its form of raytracing should be cheaper than trying to keep track of individual particles).</div><div>But then, if somebody needs to drill into the details, then it says, "well ok, then I guess I'll have to render the whole scene with polygons. It's more computationally intensive for me but since not everyone is asking me to do it at the same time, I can accommodate it".</div><div><br></div><div>It also reminds me of how the brain tries to do fuzzy routing if he can get away with it, because it is less computationally intensive. It interprets the world & gives instructions with the minimum possible level of detail. But then, if it spots out-of-context, it goes "well, I guess I'll need to turn my attention and add a lot of resolution to my input & output".</div><div><br></div><div>And this is just one of the many, many examples where I see repeatable patterns in the way systems get designed from the micro to the macro level. At some point in the future, I will analyze this in full detail.</div></div> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-41200135475483181892019-08-02T11:54:00.001+03:002019-08-02T11:54:25.245+03:00Math and time<div dir="auto">We can view math as a future prediction mechanism. With its equations it can describe/predict how one thing will transform into another.<div dir="auto">This makes time more fundamental than math and in fact a separate from all other dimensions.</div><div dir="auto">If future evolution is not deterministic then math may not be the most useful prediction tool. </div><div dir="auto">We can try to circumvent that with special math, but still what we're fundamentally trying to do is predict the future. </div><div dir="auto">We can put equations that don't include time, but still it's going to be implied. Because every math sign, every calculation is a transformation and this implies time. </div><div dir="auto">So time is fundamental, prediction for the evolution over time is what most complexity layers do, and math is a very good tool for that, for some layers. </div></div> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-59060718993625159682019-06-16T20:11:00.001+03:002019-06-16T20:11:14.170+03:00Your most precious resource<div dir="auto">Your most precious resource is your attention.<div dir="auto">Be very careful on where you dedicate it to. </div></div> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-80131759375174005082016-01-02T11:36:00.001+02:002016-01-02T11:36:45.384+02:00The problem with 3D movies<div dir="ltr">One simple reason (among others) of why 3D has failed to take off as technology, and the movie industry is really struggling to capitalize on its investment, is the following: the viewer does not have voluntary control on the Depth of Field.<div>In other words, you may have a picture in front of you that gets interpreted in 3D in your brain and you can really understand that there are some objects in the back of the frame and some that are close by, but... you cannot decide to focus either on the near or on the far. You necessarily need to follow what the camera & the director decided to do! If the director wants you to look close, the far end will appear blurry, and vice versa.</div><div>This is not the same in real life. Yes, indeed when you focus on an object close to you, the ones on the back will blur out, BUT whenever you decide you switch your focus to the distant objects and now the near ones are blurry.</div><div>The difference of course is the voluntary control, and it's indeed quite difficult for the movies to replicate that. You would need to have everything on the frame appear crisp/focused so that the user can focus wherever he wants, but I suspect that would ruin again the effect, as we're not accustomed to see everything crystal-clear. The only solution I can think of is using Lytro-type cameras to capture all depths of field when filming the movie, and then transitioning to a personalized viewing experience by the use of VR headsets like Oculus Rift. These would need to be enhanced with some retina-tracking technology to understand where we're trying to focus on adjust the DOF in real-time (and it would need to be really-really quick).</div><div>In terms of technical capability this might not be that far in the future, but it is quite different from the approach the industry has followed, and thus difficult to deploy en mass and to market. And in the end, the differential gain won't be that significant to justify the cost.<br></div><div><br></div></div> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-8756718189610591082015-10-28T12:17:00.003+02:002015-10-28T12:17:52.031+02:00What is more important, the question or the answer?<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">
My father posed this question on Facebook. I gave the following answer, which I paste as is in Greek (too lazy to translate)</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">
Το ερώτημα για να το θέσεις, πάει να πει ότι σε ενδιαφέρει. Επομένως θέλεις και να το λύσεις. Άρα είναι ένας στόχος,ένα Driving pocket. Κάτι που θα τριγυρίζει στο μυαλό σου... Και η απάντηση θα σβήσει το Driving pocket, θα σταματήσει να σε απασχολεί, αφού το συνέδεσες πλέον με κάτι γνωστό /αναμενόμενο.<br />Έλα όμως που η ανθρώπινη φύση είναι έτσι που η επίλυση του Driving pocket φέρνει απόλαυση φευγαλέα, ενώ η αναζήτηση της λύσης (ανάλογα και με το χαρακτήρα του ανθρώπου) μπορεί να σε τυραννάει πολύ, και για καιρό.<br />Με άλλα λόγια, από πλευράς μεγιστοποίησης της απόλαυσης, το καλύτερο είναι να μην θέσεις καν το ερώτημα από την αρχή, γιατί θα σου δώσει δυσφορία διάρκειας και απόλαυση της στιγμής... Καταλήγουμε επομένως στο γνωστό ρητό "μακάριοι οι πτωχοί τω πνεύματι"!<br />Όσο για το γεγονός ότι η οποιαδήποτε πρόοδος στη ζωή έχει σαν προαπαιτούμενο να τεθεί πρώτα το σωστό ερώτημα.... φανερώνει ίσως την τραγική ειρωνεία της ύπαρξης και το γεγονός ότι ο άνθρωπος ίσως δεν ήρθε πάνω σε αυτή τη γη για να ευτυχήσει.</div>
Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-75045762370095082162015-06-14T20:29:00.001+03:002015-06-14T20:29:59.765+03:00Why your every attempt to get fit fails in the long run...<div dir="ltr">I see it everywhere around me.<div>People are trying to get fit, lose a few of those extra pounds, do a little more exercise, become a more lean & slender version of themselves.</div><div>And to accomplish it, they are willing to undergo hardship, suffering, hunger, sweat, and become miserable in the short-term. All for the greater cause. They try, they really do honest efforts. Others for a few days, many for a few weeks, a few for even a couple of years... And they get startled when they experience failure in the end. It just seems unfair to them. And they have probably paid good money for it; all until this dessert comes along and becomes the last drop in their mind that lower all resistance and throws you all out to feast like there's no tomorrow, wondering why you were depriving yourself of such pleasures for so long. Life is too short to be always miserable trying to become/stay fit. You're just fine the way you are.</div><div><br></div><div>Sounds familiar? The reason I'm writing this blog post is to mention a very simple concept in the struggle for fitness, that may help you overcome the aforementioned obstacles.</div><div>If we tried to simplify a lot a equation for fitness, we would say that</div><div><b>fitness = knowhow x discipline</b></div><div><br></div><div>You have a level of knowhow and a level of discipline. When you do gradual increases to the one or the other, your overall level of fitness <u>gradually</u> increases. In whichever way you try to vary these two variables, in the long-term you will always be gradually converging back to your "natural" fitness level.</div><div>When I'm talking about know-how, I refer to knowing which foods you should eat, in which way, when, how combined, etc. Also what type of exercises you should be doing based on your fitness goals, the technique, the regularity, etc.</div><div>When I'm talking about discipline, I'm talking about the strength you find within you to follow this goal despite the short-term discomfort. The willingness to not skip the workout today, even though you're tired/lazy. The strength to skip the dessert because you're already full, even though it looks delicious. The strength to order to healthy choice instead of the fast-food.</div><div><br></div><div>Following along with this example, when you go visit a nutritionist and he gives you a strict, tailored nutrition plan, what essentially you are doing is a <b>short-term injection of know-how</b>. It temporarily brings your knowhow level a few clicks up and the longer you maintain it, you will be able to gradually converge to a higher level of fitness. The trick is though that it's an external effect that will cease once you stop it. And you will fall back to your previous level. Oh, and by the way, this nutritionist is giving you know-how, but he's not giving you extra discipline, and that's an extra reason why it's highly likely that you'll fail.</div><div><br></div><div>Going to the discipline factor... here the things are even harder. Unfortunately I think that some people are just less willing to suffer than others, and will quit much earlier than other when things get tough. It's not something you can easily fix, you were either probably born with it or it was formed quite early in your childhood. There ARE things that you can do to raise your level; it won't skyrocket but still it has the potential to be better. The simple thing is to find some long-term incentives to align with fitness. A very simple example is when it's about health. Another one (but usually more short-lived) is when you're trying to be attractive to the opposite sex. </div><div>Whatever it is, it has to mean something important for you and not be another external factor. So, getting a personal trainer is not effective, for the same reason as before. You are injecting a short-term increase in discipline (you must go to workout because someone else is indirectly forcing you to) and in know-how. But since it's external, once you cease doing it, you will gradually roll back to your earlier state.</div><div><br></div><div>As a conclusion, I want to repeat the previous equation.</div><div>Fitness = knowhow x discipline</div><div><br></div><div>So </div><div><ul><li>focus on building your personal knowhow, little by little</li><li>set realistic goals (because if it's too much your self-discipline will betray you soon, you'll burn out)<br></li><li>work on building up an intrinsic motivation, by binding/synergizing your fitness goals with other important goals of your life, in order to secure higher discipline</li></ul><div><br></div></div><div>Or just leave it like that, but be happy about it, because now you know the path, but it's your choice not to follow it :)</div></div> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-69331551606958433352015-04-20T08:25:00.001+03:002015-04-24T17:09:03.666+03:00Moments of doubt<div dir="ltr">
Sometimes I'm daunted by the complexity, sometimes I fray from cloudiness and other times I notice behaviors so remarkable that I know I'll never be able to fully explain. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
But then again I remind myself that I don't need to invent the Pentium; I only need to build an ENIAC... </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The rest will follow naturally<br /> </div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /> </div>
</blockquote>
Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-24530028970181043682014-04-27T11:45:00.002+03:002014-04-27T12:21:23.524+03:00About Singularity and its temporal proximityI just read about the <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity" target="_blank">Singularity</a> concept. Although it really agrees with my predictions that the discovery of real artificial intelligence will be an unblocker for several things in the nature of human intelligence that holds as back<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(namely the fact that even great minds have to die and humanity starts from scratch and the fact that we are bound to our biological limits/capacities in terms of memory, neuron branching, connectedness of individual brains etc.)</i></blockquote>
it was kinda daunting the postulation that all those events have a high chance of occuring within my lifetime. I always thought that our evolutional offspring (let's call their species machina sapiens :) would rise after many, many generations.<br />
The prediction that the mean date for this occurence is just around 2040, the fact that Moore's law will have produced by then the necessary hardware to house the amount of complexity neeeded to simulate a human brain, and the fact that Noesis Theory can be a catalyst for all this by providing the algorithim foundation for this construct make the likelihood of this actually occurring in our lifetime certainly not zero. Another interesting potential for Noesis Theory is that it not only unlocks the capability of building true AI, but it also enables us to understand how the algorithm that produces intelligence is made of and thus unlocks <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_self-improvement" target="_blank">Seed AI</a> and recursive self-improvements.<br />
<div>
<br />
Nevertheless, if I was asked to guess for my own estimate about the necessary time to achieve the Singularity, I would see many more steps in this process... Namely:<br />
- 2-3 years to produce a workable vesion of the Theory,<br />
- 3-5 years to make it known and start actively working on its practical implementation<br />
- 10-12 years to produce a real intelligence<br />
- At least 20-30 years to allow it to grow up and flourish (you have to let it become adult to give it time to realize its full potential and see the actual limits)<br />
- Another 20 years to finetune the intelligence and bring it on par with the best human levels of intelligence<br />
- 30-40 years more to escape the regulations and artificial barriers that humans will set upon their machinistic siblings for fear of being overshadowed by evolution.<br />
- 5-10 years for the AIs to reach a Singularity-level of sophistication<br />
So I'd say we would be looking at a good 100 years more before we're able to pass on to the next level of intelligence/complexity in this pale blue dot.<br />
<br />
Of couse, I have not factored the networking effect that could be possible with artificial brains (which can certainly be short-sighted of me, but it's a bit more complicated to analyze) and which has the potential of shortening this temporal distance.<br />
<br />
In any case, the times ahead of us seem pretty exciting. Time will tell.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-88992279071964869342013-08-06T19:00:00.001+03:002013-08-06T19:00:23.934+03:00What is Life?Somebody in the INTJ group of Facebook asked a question "What is Life?"<br />
<br />
I copy-paste my answer here, in case you find it interesting.<br />
<br />
If we take an abstract perspective on the history of the Universe as we know it, we can see that there is an inherent capability of this "construct" (the Universe) to increase its organizational complexity. From a soup of matter, to revolving galaxies, to planets of different types, to chemistry on the surface of the planet, to organic chemistry, to single-cell organisms, to plants & animals, to mammals, to homo, to homo sapiens sapiens... arriving at the epitome of evolution and complexity... the human brain.<br />
This is the single most complex organ/system in the known universe.<br />
So if you're still with me, and you accept that from our observations of known history till now there is a clear trend inherent in the laws of the universe to produce increasingly more complex organizations, then... life is simply the latest "vehicle" of this Law towards further increases in organizational complexity.<br />
If at some point in time humans discover true Artificial Intelligence and manage to create superbrains that surpass in complexity our own (and can network themselves, and never die, etc), then the latest vehicle in the progression of organizational complexity of the Universe will cease to be Life and will be something else (e.g. the self-improvement of undying-and-thus-non-living AI).Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-60858594226383569432013-04-03T08:03:00.000+03:002013-04-03T08:03:00.021+03:00Noesis Theory explaining scientific researchI read today in Scientific American about a new research for <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mirror-neurons-can-relfect-hatred" target="_blank">mirror neurons & hatred</a>.<br />
On the one hand it is very encouraging to find out that Noesis Theory explains most of the discoveries in the area of the brain... In fact, I could have predicted the outcome of this research beforehand, just by using Noesis Theory. It is also useful for me, because I learn about the proper scientific terms for some of the mechanisms I have described.<br />
So I learned from this research the term of "mirror neurons" which in NT terms is the product of affinity. We get pleasure from some patterns and they are stored in our brain as extensions of ourselves (increasing the "affinity" between us and them), thus these neurons will reflect with a varying degree (which depends on how much pleasure they have provided to us) pleasure and pain of others towards us. In other words, any pattern that gets linked with us with the mechanism of affinity can be called a mirror neuron.<br />
As a direct result of what I mentioned above, and a hint for future research for Scientific American: any memory neuron can become a mirror neuron, just because any type of pattern can possibly offer us pleasure and thus be linked with affinity.<br />
<br />
The only disappointing thing from the comments above is that although Noesis Theory seems to have great value and potential (it explains scientific research before it even gets done), due to the fact that it is not well known yet, it cannot be utilized by the scientific community to set a proper framework for all cognitive functions and better direct our research.<br />
<br />
Let's hope that this will change in the future.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-62949476583994731452013-02-03T11:56:00.000+02:002013-02-03T11:56:02.002+02:00Birth date of maximization of pleasure ideaI was browsing through my notes and studying the evolution of my thought process and when in particular the basic idea of Noesis Theory (maximization of pleasure / minimization of discomfort) was born.<br />
The first entry is in Feb 14 2006:<br />
<br />
(...)<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EL</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Το θέμα όμως είναι......... Τί είναι αυτό που θα κρίνει την
επιτυχία ή αποτυχία της διάσχισης? </i></div>
<i>
</i><div class="MsoNormal">
<i> Ελπίζω μονάχα να μην είναι τόσο πεζό όσο αυτό που φαντάζομαι
και ο άνθρωπος να μην αποδειχθεί απλά μια μηχανή που υπακούει στις ορμόνες του
και επιθυμεί να μεγιστοποιεί τα ευχάριστα συναισθήματα και να
ελαχιστοποιεί/αποφεύγει τα δυσάρεστα. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another entry that showcases this as a fully developed idea was at 22/07/2006:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EL</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><i>Είμαι σίγουρος ότι πλέον ο άνθρωπος είναι ένα ον που προσπαθεί να μεγιστοποιήσει την ευχαρίστησή του μέσω της κάθε σκέψης και της κάθε απόφασής του. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So somewhere in the <b>spring of 2006</b>, the foundation of Noesis Theory was put in place.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-34018745763106818072013-02-02T13:39:00.002+02:002013-02-02T13:39:36.557+02:00About racismFirst of all racism is a natural derivative of the human brain function, due to affinity. Our brain is trained to spot similarities between things that are close to us, and if those things bring us pleasure they increase the affinity and we consider them as a extension of ourselves. When we have built such an affinity with these patterns, it is natural to be able to spot differences with people that are widely divergent from those familiar to us patterns. This mental separation can manifest into indifference, aversion, snobism or even racism. <br />You'll notice here that I'm using the word racism with a more gentle connotation that usual, i.e. not implying acts of hatred or severe discrimination. For me, racism as an unavoidable product of our mental processes, is just a strong sense of personal differentiation from others.<br />Now the question is: does racism exist even today and in what form? Well, as you would imagine the discrimination in casts of humans is still here, mostly because as we said it is an derived from an inherent feature of the human brain. And the way it appears today is in my opinion via the financial capabilities of each individual.<br />Poor people are considered of lower value than rich people. Life is worth less for these "lower levels of human existence" (I'm being ironic here, of course). They are entitled to less healthcare & welfare and are marginalized from society. If we go a bit upper, to the hard-working but low-paid populace, they are certainly better but still, they are utilized like modern slaves, forced to work day & night and give their lives as cogs to the capitalistic machine. They are comforted with a mobile phone, a remote control and always kept on a leash via a heavy mortgage.<br />Going even higher on the human scale, we have the self-made business owners & professionals (the upper middle-class). These are now highly regarded because they rose up to the challenge and made a difference. They are considered a higher class on their own, entitled to good private healthcare, and capable to live in spacious, luxurious homes with many comforts of their choosing. They are the envy of the populace and the highest grade one can ever hope to ascend to.<br />And finally, we have the super-rich, who were born into riches or the extremely few who became billionnaires. They are a class of their own, self-regarded as the rulers of this system. These are the masters of the "slaves" below, heavily dependent on the populace to keep the machine turning and provide them the profits, with little or just normal work. They might have inherited the riches, they might not be smart or capable, but still they consider themselves above all else.<br /><br />You see, and this is where the system is wrong. Because discrimination and racism exists even today (and we probably cannot avoid as long as we are human), but it's form is twisted. Because we have translated money as a measure of worth and regard the individual depending on the amount of money & assets we has in his bank account.<br />If the ideal of eradicating racism cannot be achieved, at least we should change its manifestation. We need a better measure of worth than money. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally disagree with the notion that making money is a measure of worth. It definity shows something. An excellent (bright, capable, honest) employee would be paid more than an average employee. This is natural and expected. It is healthy, because it provides an incentive to the excellent employee to keep up his efforts, as well as a motive to the average employee to get better. <br />But this is a good case of where more money means more worth. There are also many other examples that this paradigm fails. If you inherited the money, it means nothing about your abilities (moreover, it is a counter-incentive to evolve and better yourself). If you stole & cheated to get it, it is also a bad indicator. If you had a better startpoint than most (due to your parents' circle of acquaintances, or their financial support) it is unfair to be compared to equal terms with the rest. So, in the process of making money, there are many other factors expect individual human worth that can tip the scale in your favor or against it, which ultimately makes money a bad factor for differentiation.<br />And what is a better measure of worth? Well, if it was simple, we would have discovered it. It would be nice to have a way to measure how virtuous a character is, how much is his capabilities, his smarts, his willingness to offer to the public, his potential for evolution. If we had such an objective measure and is also was not only genetically predisposed (i.e. you were not born into a class but you had the capability to change if you wanted to and tried), then I would personally be ok with having some kind of discrimination. If you had the capability to ensure a good level of welfare for all individuals, give them all, an equal starting point and then judge them objectively based on their actual worth and contribution to society, then yes some who excelled should also be rewarded more handsomely that others. This is perfectly normal and it would set a precedent and align the motives of everybody for a better world via personal contribution.<br />But until we have such a system, racing based on any other measure is just plain wrong.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-11833912366233936162013-01-06T22:18:00.002+02:002013-01-06T22:18:27.888+02:00Just a quick comment about intelligenceHigher levels of intelligence (e.g. those exhibited by humans) are just a product of better pattern matching, in my opinion.<br />
I don't see much different capabilities & algorithms in animals than in humans. And a nice example is love: it is just a higher level of affinity (that is also found in animals) due to better pattern matching!Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-64566914396086752322013-01-06T12:59:00.000+02:002013-01-06T12:59:09.695+02:00An attempt to explain extro & intro-versionEveryone wants to be happy in his life, to experience emotions and joy.<br />
And we know from Noesis Theory that emotions are Driving Pockets that occur from out-of-context experiences.<br />
Some people are able to produce original thoughts and out-of-context experiences purely from inside their mind and others need external stimulation to achieve that. Thus it is natural for the latter to be "forced" by their own nature to seek this external stimulation, because this is the only known way for them to experience interesting emotions!<br />
So I would be willing to take a guess, saying that extroversion is a byproduct of the structure of the mind of a portion of individuals and is used as a method to create out-of-context experiences.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-12416630590201761512013-01-06T12:00:00.003+02:002013-01-06T12:00:56.593+02:00A bit more elaboration on the meaning of lifeAs I have said many times in the past, I believe that the meaning of life is the advancement of organizational complexity.<br />
But a question that can easily be posed is: which type of advancement is good and which is bad? And who should be the judge of that?<br />
<br />
It is true that for humans this conundrum has been solved since inception, whereas a race of robots would really have a hard time solving the same question. The answer for humans is of course death. Death prunes all the branches of the tree sooner or later and it is up to humanity to pick the best branches and maintain the knowledge they offered in their lifetime, by writing it in books, teaching it in schools and capitalizing on it in various ways; integrating it in a way in its body of knowledge.<br />
It is certainly sad that the good branches are also pruned at some point in time, but it would be even worse if it was left in the hands of men to decide who will live forever and who should be left to perish. Imagine if this was the case and if by chance Hitler was able to win WW2... We would have been sunk to an eternal Dark Age...<br />
<br />
So it's better if every person leaves behind a new piece of complexity (let's think of it as a lego piece) that humanity has to decide whether to stack it upon the other pieces that have been aggregated since the dawn of man, or simply leave it aside. It is a tough decision, because sometimes such a piece may prove unworthy foundation for the pieces above and humanity might have to "backtrack" and tear down a whole piece of the wall, just to be able to put a better piece (of complexity) that can support building a higher "wall".<br />
<br />
In the end, the goal is to take the right decisions that help us build the highest possible wall, or in other words advance complexity to the limits that the human mind can support.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-13762718137639805482012-12-01T14:28:00.001+02:002012-12-01T14:28:45.505+02:00Involuntary repositioning on Maslow's pyramid<p>It is truly difficult for me to deal with Level 5 when the situation close, nearby and around keeps repositioning me back to Level 2...</p> Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-16779300840068985072012-11-06T23:26:00.003+02:002012-11-06T23:26:32.667+02:00Nietsche and his epiphanies<br />
It is incredible how accurately Nietsche describes the epiphanies that
are coming often to me about my Noesis Theory!! It is truly a wonderful
experience!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<em style="background-color: #f8f8f8; border: 0px; color: #0d0c0d; font-family: Calibri,Candara,Segoe,Optima,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">Something
profoundly convulsive…suddenly becomes visible and audible with
indescribable definiteness and exactness…There is an ecstasy whose
terrific tension is sometimes released by a flood of tears…There is a
feeling that one is utterly out of hand…Everything occurs without
volition, as if an eruption of freedom, independence, power, and
divinity. The spontaneity of the images and similes is most remarkable;
one loses all perception of what is imagery and simile; everything
offers itself as the most immediate, exact, and simple means of
expression.</em><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="border: 0px none; color: #0d0c0d; font-family: Calibri,Candara,Segoe,Optima,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px none; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">Simply amazing how unique experiences such as this transcend individuality and manifest in the way across times and minds. And all this because, deep down, deep inside, the brain operates by just one algorithm...</span></span><em style="background-color: #f8f8f8; border: 0px; color: #0d0c0d; font-family: Calibri,Candara,Segoe,Optima,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></em>Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-81401952870183367852012-05-26T13:13:00.005+03:002012-05-26T13:13:57.671+03:00The advantageous flaw of capitalismThe advantageous flaw of capitalism is that it is designed to give people what they want.<br />
And we pretty well all know that giving in and indulging in your desires is not necessarily a good thing.<br />
<br />
Yes, I know what you're going to say: but this exactly is the meaning of life according to Noesis Theory (maximization of pleasure)! Why should this be a bad thing?<br />
<br />
Well the problem lies into the fact that our brain is constructed in a way to value immediate and more certain pleasure much more than the distant, unsure, more abstract pleasure. Physical things, consumables, sex, here-and-now items will always be preferred by the masses because of their capability for instant pleasure.<br />
Ideals, long-range goals for world peace, better education, higher intellect, etc will be dismissed by the brain if given a choice.<br />
<br />
And it is given a choice every minute of your time. For example on how you'll spend your money and your time. People make these choices for the short-term pleasure and thus shape the demand of the market. Capitalism stirs the corporations into filling in this demand with supply of goods & services that people want and are willing to pay for! If the majority of the populace valued and derived the utmost pleasure from creating a better education system, the corporations would already have provided it, in order to increase their profits!<br />
It's the demand that's the problem, not the supply!!<br />
<br />
So my advice would be to stop trying to beat capitalism. It is a system that is very good at providing people what gives them pleasure. And you can't beat that goal, because it is hardwired into your brain.<br />
So don't try to change the supply side of the equation. Change the demand!<br />
<br />
It's the people's wants that are flaws. Make them want something better for everybody and capitalism will adapt to provide it. It's as simple as that ;)Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-60415056322249761682012-04-17T01:14:00.000+03:002012-04-17T01:31:30.601+03:00Jung Typology test resultsHere are my results from humanmetrics.com (nice test btw):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV6Aph3Aeg-Cu0-cnSWXqoes-QY3ki0UtWDHhB2x5HPtYILtIk419-y162D4AuW_XffCM3VVh0N0yQS3_RxpV6KDjhFcfdK97AugXYhMZK-bu0iFU4HK_htoBkjXhDBzdmHrrDH4re18Y/s1600/VT+Personality+Type+-+2012.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV6Aph3Aeg-Cu0-cnSWXqoes-QY3ki0UtWDHhB2x5HPtYILtIk419-y162D4AuW_XffCM3VVh0N0yQS3_RxpV6KDjhFcfdK97AugXYhMZK-bu0iFU4HK_htoBkjXhDBzdmHrrDH4re18Y/s400/VT+Personality+Type+-+2012.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Actually, deep down I'm an INTP (certainly used to be a few years ago) that was gradually forced into J by his mother and the requirements of corporate work and the PM profession. When I'm overburdened, I revert to my previous INTP state, but mostly now I'm an INTJ. Moreover, also at work I try to behave as an ENTJ, in order to survive and possibly thrive.<br />
<br />
-----<br />
The amount of prediction accuracy that this theory offers for various people personalities is fascinating. I would really like to study it more, in order to be able to map it with specific functions and operations in the human brain, according to Noesis Theory...Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-72439760970446470572012-04-17T01:08:00.002+03:002012-04-17T01:29:40.880+03:00Declaration on the new function of this blogSince a while ago, this blog is not the official blog of Noesis Theory. If you wish to learn new things about Noesis Theory, you can visit the new, Wordpress blog at<b> <a href="http://www.noesistheory.com/">www.noesistheory.com</a>,which is the official new blog of Noesis Theory</b>.<br />
<br />
From now on, <b>this blog is the personal blog of Vassilis Toulias</b>, where I will be expressing my thoughts in a non-structured way, mostly for my own contentment. So you can expect much shorter blog posts (but more frequent!), with various thoughts of mine (probably linked with Noesis Theory, but not necessarily), less structure, even poorer narrative, and more raw/unfinished/w-i-p material.<br />
<br />
Thanks for understanding,<br />
VassilisVasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-69483105068516520812011-12-28T12:30:00.003+02:002011-12-28T12:30:33.319+02:00Why history repeats itself<br />
We have all seen examples while studying history that humanity makes the same mistakes again and again. Probably Thucidides was the first one to accurately note it and describe it. And there's a very good reason why this behavioral pattern happens again and again... And we're going to explain it via the Noesis theory!<br />
<br />
The idea is simple: history repeats itself because the "context" of each individual (the onion layers around the DFs) dies along with him/her and does not get transferred to the next generation. In other words, all the thoughts and action, all the teachings of past experience, all the pain from wrongdoing get lost once a person dies.<br />
Do you remember when I said that death is the tool of evolution? And that this is a good thing, because it pruns the tree, keeping only the good things of each generation?<br />
Well, that is true but not 100% accurate. It needs further elaboration to explain my point better: although in the field of genome this is accurate, in the knowledge world it is not.<br />
Because in the genes world, the biological mechanisms of evolution have been set in such a way in this world so that they promote the beneficial genes and the individuals carrying them will most likely lead longer lives and have healthier offspring. This is the mechanism of nature (ok, it has been overriden slightly by man and medicine, but that's another topic), we don't have to do anything for it to be enacted on this world. So in this field, death is the instrument of evolution and the system should converge to better and healthier genes.<br />
Now, on the knowledge world, the problem is that this process of keeping the best is optional! It is upon the individuals of the next generation to judge what good did the previous generation create as new knowledge and try to preserve it for the next. And it is also discretionary to them whether they'll study it and "own it", make it a part of their own thought process, as if they were the ones that discovered it (in Noesis terms: equalizing the "context" of the minds of the previous generation with the context of their own minds).<br />
<i>On a side note, this is the reason why writing and science are two great achievements that resulted in exponential growth of knowledge in the human world. Writing because it provides the mean to transfer context from one dying generation to another (much better and more massively than story-telling) and science because it provides the means of judging objectively what is a new advancement and should be included in the generally accepted theories and what is not and can be safely discarded.Writing and science are the two most important tools for transferring context from one brain to the other and it resulted in amazing progression of our capabilities (hundreds of years) whereas previously we needed hundreds of thousands of years for simple advancements. Side note ends...</i><br />
Going back to the knowledge world, hopefully we have understood by now that humans now have the tools to converge to better and better knowledge as generations progress in time but, compared to the genes world where enactment of these tools is automatic, in the knowledge world the usage of these tools is discretionary. The next generation will try to judge all the knowledge contributions of the previous era and if it likes it, it will try to integrate it into "history" and "generally accepted theory". There is no guarantee that the judgement will be correct, no guarantee that it will be recorded/understood right, no guarantee that someone will actually study it and own it, in order to essentially integrate into its own mind and learn the teachings and the mistakes of the past.<br />
And there's a final flaw as well: even if someone fully describes to you a theory, the context that will be built into your brain is much more shallow (with less interconnections of neurons) than the one the inventor of this theory has into his own brain. So for example this text for my context is 100% descriptive (even the side-notes or the comments in parentheses) because when I read the words-patterns, a whole set of other patterns get lit up into my brain and "I get it". On the other hand, someone who is quite new to the Noesis theory does not have this whole context into his mind and might need to read some parts of it 2-3 times in order to "fully get it". Not because he is not smart or capable! It is just because he is missing the appropriate context. So, final word on this: even if you describe to someone with words and illustrations some previous knowledge, there is no real comparison of the context that you're forging into his brain with the context that experience has forged into your context.<br />
<br />
As it becomes clear now, with every new generation we are losing knowledge from the generation that passes away. And it is the responsibility of the new generation to safeguard the best part of this lost context and integrate it into its own context and thinking processes. This is a duty no doubt, but its enactment is optional. And the tools humans have for this are also imperfect. And the assurance that the preserved context (even if we assume that the best parts were identified and preserved) will be studied is non-existent.<br />
<br />
The result of the above paragraph is that... history repeats itself! Humans of the new generation do not have their context embodied with the teachings of past mistakes. And even if they have, it has not been done "the hard way", i.e. living it, experiencing the pain yourself and building strong neural connections with the DFs. You may have only read about it, so you might recognize the pattern, but the connection is not very strong, so you will not recognize it soon enough and you might not have associated it with a DF of pain, in order to try and avoid it.<br />
Thus, you will make the same mistakes as your ancestors. Your children might not, because you, still in pain from your previous mistakes, will make sure that you transfer the context to them well enough, but regarding your grandchildren... it's not certain any more. They are too far from the source of knowledge and if they haven't studied history well enough, they might go down the same paths. <br />
<br />Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-29798916594134555412011-12-03T09:18:00.001+02:002011-12-03T10:17:54.369+02:00Micro-impulses, the pattern-to-action links and absent-mindednessIn my recent speech at Mensa I talked about these three topics, but I don't think I have had the opportunity to mention them here in writing as well.<br />
<br />
Let's begin with the second one: <b>the pattern-to-action links</b>.<br />
The easy way of describing this is saying it is very similar to the action-reaction concept. In physics you have a reaction for every action. In the brain you <b>may </b>have an action for a specific pattern that you identify; meaning that whenever you see a specific set of patterns, you immediate try to act in a specific way, without trying to think about it and analyze it.<br />
Well, it's not exactly that simple, but I wanted you to get the "cause-and-effect" concept of it. Action => Reaction. Pattern => Action.<br />
This is possible in the human brain if:<br />
<ul>
<li>the pattern is in-context</li>
<li>the link from the pattern to the action mesh has been created in the past via the DP mechanisms</li>
</ul>
You need both prerequisites for it to work. It has to exist (ii) and it has to be as expected (i). In other words, you must have done this action in the past: the first time a DP was created, it stole some battery power, you tried some actions, you found one suitable, you got feedback, the neurons were strengthened and a weak link from the pattern to the action mesh was forged. The next time, the out-of-context experience was less, the DP smaller, the action easier, but still the extra feedback made the link even stronger. Thus, in time you build links from patterns to specific areas in the action mesh, that serve as purpose to propel yourself from identifying the pattern directly to acting on it in a specific way, that you know from past experiences that was useful to you (this was proven by the fact that you got feedback).<br />
But the pattern has to be very similar to what you're used to seeing when you learned to react in this way. If all other external stimuli from the environment are different, then the "combined traversal" of them into your brain won't be the same and the signals will end up in different areas of the brain, and thus they won't reach this P-A link, and the action won't be performed.<br />
It's like asking you to play bowling with a bolleyball. It might still be possible to somewhat play, but the weight of it in your hand feels different and the way you have to throw it is different, thus you can't just pick it up and perform the same moves as you're used to. This situation is out-of-context and the P-A links that you have already built from your previous bowling experiences are only partially useful. You have to build new P-A links in this new context!<br />
If you're following thus far and know the rest of my theory as well, then you probably already understood that this pattern-to-action links are the instruments upon which the Helix mechanism (the ex snail mechanism, I have renamed it :) is created; it would not be possible to have a choreography of consecutive moves that one causes the other, if you didn't have P-A links for each one.<br />
So now the Helix can be described as follows: you get some external stimuli, if they are in-context and you have P-A links in place, no DP is created, you perform a spontaneous action, which alters the environment (outer loop) but also alters your expectations of what will come next (of what will be in-context). If the new external stimuli continue to be in-context and you have P-A links for this, you do another action, and so on and so forth.<br />
This choreography of spontaneous actions that come naturally to you and you don't even realize/remember them is the Helix, and it is composed of the P-A links, the inner&outer loop and the Selector.<br />
<br />
Now that we have this in place, we can describe the <b>micro-impulses</b> as well.<br />
This mechanism actually generalizes the concept of Driving Pockets and gives a better explanation as to how we can perform difficult actions or new actions by combining the previous "kinetic" knowledge of our brain. Actually this topic would be very helpful in robotics and neural networks, I suppose.<br />
To explain the micro-impulses, you have to take one thing that I'll tell you as a fact: when the brain decides to make a move, it does not know beforehand exactly how it will do it. It gives a general order, a vague "description" of how it wants to move and makes it more specific along the way. How does it do it? It's very simple! It has an idea of what it wants to perform (by "projecting" the outcome through the inner loop into the pattern mesh). It observes the effects of its abstract command for action on the environment and the external stimuli that it now gets (through the outer loop) and spots minor differences that will create small DPs (or large, if we don't know at all how to do it, or very small if we have done this many, many times in the past). These small DPs, steal a small amount of the battery power and in the known way try to fix this out-of-context thing by adjusting the details of the action. In other words, they create micro-impulses; minor muscular adjustments to the original kinda vague movement order.<br />
Since these micro-impulses are done by small DPs, the current available to the battery for other, big DPs is enough and this does not disrupt our regular processing ability, unless while trying to perform something ordinary we spot something extra-ordinary (out-of-context) that is important (relates with a DF) and thus deserve our specific attention.<br />
If this is not the case, all regular/usual actions are handled by a combination of Helix, the P-A links and micro-impulses to perform minor adjustments to our movements.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, if you want to have a kind of proof for the fact that our brain "orders" abstract moves and adjusts them along the way, you can think of this:<br />
what happens when we hear a loud noise, while performing an action. If this let's say sounds dangerous and we get alarmed, a big DP gets formed, steals all battery signal and our movement gets disrupted. But we don't stop moving instantly! We continue for maybe about a second or so more. And this last second of movement is not very precise (because we have lost focus and we don't continue to make adjustments with micro-impulses). So there you have it: the fact that we continue to do a general movement is kind of proof for the fact that the brain gives abstract move commands and the fact that this move is not precise when we lose all battery power (that gets stolen by the big DP), is proof that we need microDPs to do micro-impulses and make our moves precise.<br />
<br />
Moving on to the third one, we will describe why we act in an <b>absent-minded</b> way sometimes (we needed the first two to understand this better).<br />
If we are focused on something that is important (i.e. we have a big DP that steals almost all current of the battery), then we don't have a lot of battery power left for the micro-impulses. This means that something that is quite in-context (but not 100%) will create a movement via the P-A links, but this movement won't be adjusted by the micro-impulses (because all the battery power is stolen by our big DP) and thus our movement will be done only approximately correct, or "muzzy", blurry (στο περίπου in Greek).<br />
And by another example we can understand how this also translates to the thought process as well, because (I'm tired of saying it again and again) actions and thoughts are the same thing for the brain in terms of mechanisms. When we are performing an action that is very out-of-context, but is important (and thus we have a big DP that steals all battery current) we cannot think of something at the same time. We are focused on our action. It is not necessary to have to do difficult and abstract/advance thoughts to perform this action. No, this effect happens even when we just do a difficult action without using our thinking process too much. So it's not like we're using our capacity for abstract thoughts in another way; no it is not used at all. Nevertheless, we cannot use it because we don't have battery power, and if something asks us a question, we might reply with a very generic/vague/simplistic answer, just because we didn't have the battery power to think of something better/more-elaborate to answer. In other words, when we're focused in an action, our thinking process and our answers are muzzy/indistinct/inaccurate/non-elaborated, exactly as our actions are muzzy when we're thinking. Q.E.D.Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-63662425334288702712011-10-02T22:14:00.002+03:002011-10-02T22:14:18.872+03:00The meaning of existence is the progression of organizational complexityWhen I took about organizational complexity I'm not talking specifically about human organizations and people constructs. I'm talking about mechanisms that are able to cope with the complexity of the universe and adapt to it; so in essence understand it. A perfect mechanism for this is indeed the human brain. But it is not the only one, and I certainly can't tell if it's the best one. Corporations and other people associations are also suitable for this description. They too have a drive to understand the environment they exist in and adapt to it in the best possible way to survive.<br />
You see, although the meaning of being is to increase the organizational complexity of some constructs of the universe, these "constructs" don't actually know that their purpose of being is that. They are tricked by their "driving forces" into doing things that they fancy and in essence promote their complexity as an underlying goal. So people have bodily needs and to better serve them they need to understand and adapt to their environment (to be able to feed themselves for easily, for example). But by doing this, they increase their complexity of their own mind. Corporations have a "need" for better profits, so to achieve this they come up with better products, improved processes, better technologies, better offers, etc. These functions are more elaborate and thus more complex. So by trying to fulfill their needs, they are forced/tricked into increasing their complexity. This is a vicious circle that drives life/being into higher levels of complexity as years/millenia go by.<br />
That's why I love the law of requisite variety (I haven't actually read it from the source, I'm using the interpretation as presented by our OB professor Dionysiou). It more or less encompasses the meaning of life! The universe is vast and complex. But it has a superb groundwork (the natural laws etc) that allows for constructs inside it to become more evolved/elaborate/complex as time progresses. So from the birth of the universe, let's say some billion of years ago (...although I don't believe in the Big Bang, I like Mayer's theory much more) till now and on to the future, the complexity inside the universe is gradually increased. The pinnacle of this ongoing effort is the human brain as well as the layers above it (e.g. I consider societies a layer above the human brain). This is the meaning of existence.<br />
It doesn't have to be nice, it doesn't have to be understandable. We're not even supposed to be able to see a meaning, a master plan behind it. It is too complex for us to fully comprehend it. We can just realize this tendency and "go along" as it is the only certainty in life (even bigger than death!).<br />
<br />
Btw, death is also a tool of this complexity progression tendency of the universe. E.g. the human society benefits by death, because the knowledge of all the good branches remain (it is written in book, taught in schools, passed from generation to generation) whereas all the bad branches is lost into oblivion. The universe has no law, no instrument to judge which "branch" is better for the purpose of increasing complexity, so it lets all branches grow and clips them at the end (by death), so that the crops from the good remain within the construct and others can built upon them. In other words, death is an instrument of the natural tendency of the universe for increased complexity.<br />
<br />
So this is it. This is the meaning of existence. Caution, I'm not talking about the meaning of life. The meaning of life is very well known to me (and is answered by my Theory). It is the maximization of pleasure (and minimization of displeasure). But the meaning of life is only the "trick" the universe has imposed upon us (living beings) to fulfill its greater purpose of increasing organizational complexity.<br />
<br />
We can't understand what's behind it. It's like trying to describe quantum physics to an ant. But this ant, as well as all other similar constructs in the universe, is striving to increase its own complexity to be able to fill the complexity of the whole universe in its own "mind".Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-88471108838055782322011-10-02T21:38:00.000+03:002011-11-27T11:10:02.263+02:00Why giving yourself a massage or a tickle is much less effective!Well, the idea is really simple: you expect it to happen, because you have decided that you will do it.<br />
<br />
And I don't mean it a general action; I'm referring to every little move of your fingers. The current that begins from the driving pocket (let's say that you remembered the sensation of your last week's massage by your spouse and decide to do it to yourself. That's a driving pocket!) and travels to the action endpoints (to order your fingers to move) also goes through the inner loop and back to the pattern matching mesh part of your brain. This means that through the inner loop you "preview" or (prefeel) what the sense of your own touch will feel fractions of a millisecond later.<br />
And this is exactly the problem. Since you have touched yourself a lot of times in the past, you know the sensation of your own skin, you also know how to control your fingers and how to touch your skin... this has the effect that the current that goes through the inner loop and back to the PM mesh is directed very accurately to the areas that the external stimuli will also arrive as a consequence of your actions.<br />
And as we've said (we haven't actually, because I keep postponing explaining in detail what the DIFF mechanism does), our brain constantly does a differential "at the door", so that it negates any signals that it already expects. In other words, any signal that through the inner loop is "expected" to arrive at the PM mesh via the external stimuli will be reduced in power (or completely negated) the more we have accurately predicted it (seen it coming). This is a continuous process by the human brain that cannot be turned off. It has the effect of removing "redundant" information from all incoming signals ("been there, done that" stuff) and allows only out-of-context signals to pass into the brain and get processed.<br />
<br />
It's like a secretary for a celebrity: it throws to the garbage all omg-I-totally-love-you fan letters that keep coming by the hundreds every day and only allows important letters that are out-of-context (e.g. a letter from the IRS :).Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964499018149996658.post-48373720999911211122011-05-09T23:12:00.000+03:002014-02-12T21:52:33.405+02:00Why being megalomaniac is a good thing (sometimes) - And the mechanism of repressionOne should usually admit such things publicly, but I want to make a point relative to my theory, so here it is:<br />
<br />
When you're reaching out for a goal too large for an ordinary human to accomplish, having thoughts of grandeur actually helps you keep on target! I often catch myself thinking about the "after". What will happen after I complete my theory; how I'll try to get it published, the methods of explaining it to the mass, how I can also make a profit out of such extraordinary knowledge, etc. Another human might quickly try to dismiss such thoughts or even try to discipline himself into avoiding them, as they lack humility and modesty and character. But when you're reaching for the stars... you actually need such thoughts, they are invaluable into keeping your Driving Pockets active for a long time.<br />
<br />
Remember what we've already said: thinking is living (on a smaller scale/level, i.e. it is not as intense as actually experiencing them in flesh and blood, but the mechanism is the same, just turned down some notches). So when you think about some probable future stimuli that have the potential to give you pleasure, the DPs will be activated (but not as much). Nevertheless, this activation is a promise for pleasure.<br />
<br />
Let's take a step back and explain the "repressed" feelings (I really DON'T like this translation. The greek "Απωθημένο" is much better) and how they get created.<br />
<br />
What have we said about feedback? You get feedback (=strengthening of all currently active neural connections) in two cases: when the DPs get activated (feedback in the pattern-matching mesh), or when they get deactivated (feedback in the action mesh). So when you get a good scare about something, you will strengthen the path between this pattern and the DF of pain (fear is the promise of pain). The next time you see this pattern, the paths are stronger so the signal loss traversing it will be less and the DP will be even bigger!<br />
On the other hand, when you eat something you really like, the active neural paths in the inner loop will be linked to this pattern (feedback in the action/inner-loop mesh) and the next time you try to eat it, you will "expect" it, so it will be more in-context and the DIFF mechanism (we haven't discussed about that yet, have we?) will subtract the predicted signal from the real signal and less of the original signal will enter the inner paths of your brain, and thus you will get less pleasure!<br />
<br />
So you repress your feelings by having a promise for pleasure (activation of DP; pattern-mesh feedback) that does not have the chance to get fulfilled (i.e. to act on this DP and deactivate it, so you get action-mesh-feedback). In this way, sooner or later you see a person that exhibits excessive and rampant behavior (BIG DPs) when he sees something not that extreme. It is because he was getting a promise for pleasure (or pain!) that did not have the chance to get acted upon and become in-context. Time after time, the DP was getting larger and larger until it blows up :)<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's get back to megalomania... Megalomania acts very much like repression in the aforementioned example. You get a boost in your DP that does not get fulfilled. The effect of this is that, although in many other people this DP would diminish too much too quickly ("this is a long-shot, I'll never have the opportunity to accomplish it") and they would move into acting on other DPs, in a megalomaniac this boost in the DP is enough to keep the promise alive! The fact that you "live" the potential (the what-can-be) in your thoughts is enough to keep you going, where others would have stopped ("Keep walking" :D).Vasilios Touliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10501617130618019004noreply@blogger.com0