C-263. Frontier technology
Change everything? Yes, but how? And what? And in what sequence? The Expansion- Nature of Things Conjecture provides an analytic “tool” … in that its bi-perspective recommends a review of, and when it becomes indicated, a transformation of WISA re WITA to provide more of WICF and WTITBTA. As reaching the Conjecture itself suggests, there is much that needs thinking and rethinking about. “Mind” needs the help of a disciplined procedural technology.
The bi-perspective, viewing the Expansion’s extension forward from Big Bang together with seeing it later in cross section(s), makes it clear that a purely ahistorical picture needs a companion historical picture. To Grasp functionality completely and accurately, the ahistorical “X = f(Y)” needs the assistance of the historical “DIF => DIF” (from “f” to “=>” … as temporal adjustments to the concept of “causation” illustrate).
Why a discipline and not just a field of practices? Consider that us humans are born with unequal capacities and in unequal circumstance. These inequalities will persist – however they come to vary In quality and quantity. How then can we come to the equality of “We, the people”? AT and IN the next step, the condition we share. We need a discipline that attends to the technical development of the shared next step, extending that step molecularly beyond current limited practices.
We have already suggested that IN and BY (Expansion) principle procedural technology can solve the problem that Hardin posed as the “Tragedy of the Commons.” His needed functionality of “conscience” can be extended from the limited calculus of self’ functionality/dysfunctionality (“good-bad”) to include one of Selves’ Functionality/Needed Functionality. We have “sins of omission” that rival “sins of commission.”
And we have also pointed out that “the mind-body problem” is an artifact of B-ness: Behavior has been coopted and deflated by entity in B-spacetime. But if we apply the pragmatic precept to separate behavior and entity; then conceptual “mind” is transformed to behavioral “Mind” … where it finds a productive CEM relationship with “Move.”
Also, we can get a much different Read of G..G. Simpson’s point (to attend all phenomena to which principles apply, not just principles that apply to all phenomena) than the Science magazine readers gave it. They saw it as self-serving for the Biology professional observer community. As, for example, to legitimize questions of “How come?” and “What for?”. (The Conjecture corrects the shortsightedness of B-universe observers who object to these questions .. questions which like “What might be?” and “What ought to be?” and the theoretical construct of “purpose” are grounded in the larger Involve of The Expansion and Nature of Things – and very relevant AT, ON the Frontier FOR and Before our next step, which may be a matter of survival.)
Now with The Expansion-Nature of Things transfiguration and its two universes, the human condition can be seen to include phenomena subject to principles and/or laws ( a needed distinction) … and behavioral phenomena that need to be seen before, and not just after, the fact. Including, Simpson said, the scientist’s own observer behavior. To which no reader comment was addressed.
And then there is the “second dictionary” project, in which behavioral materiality would be extracted from B-speak and then that which B-speak has omitted is added in … to produce should we say, “S-speak” (e.g., R-words)? In S-speak the “words” would be mettles. An introduction would explain how these mettles are to be used linguistically. This language (“HATS”?) composes mettle contributions from Humanity, Art, Technology and mind-bound Science, melding them to give meanings (and meaning) to mettles (which are busy with their own functional development): to what is needed before the fact for the next step. Meanings that behavioral architecture gave them before the fact. Phenomenally speaking, this mode of behavior has been practiced already. Consider, for example, procedural techs of smiling and bowing in person-to-person meetings, gestures and emphases in conversation and font and punctuation in print.*
***
For actors AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion, poised for the next step with which to extend their own expansions, the Mind technologies of professional observers (e.g., psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology) have had limited functionality. Notably, but not only, the difficulties imposed by observers on actors in the communicative transaction between their observations and the actors’ use of those observations. Not just those of jargon and thoughtknots.** Most significantly, professional observers have failed to Grasp all that is IN and OF consequence – i.e., the totality of materiality.
We can stipulate the principle of communicability: of a “Tell CEM Read” between communicators as a companion to the Tell CEM Reads between observers and the observed. The two “facets” of what is called for (WICF). Help, a crucial needed functionality, is not going to work without both and without a CEM balance between the two.
Mathematics, logic, statistics and B-speak are technically more to the point of behaviors already taken than to those steps that have to be made before they can be taken. This is B-ness, the influence of B-spacetime and B-speak, focusing on materiality after the fact more than materiality before the fact. And, allied with notions of One-ness, not nearly concerned enough with needed R-zone “as one” capabilities – i.e., Community and Union.
Not much concerned with CEM, which should be operating paradigmatically as theory FOR with method FOR. As method with ratios playing a crucial role, establishing qualitative independence of observed conditions in Accord with the pragmatic precept and bi-ness; then with quantitative ratio imbalances guiding molecular steps forward re needed functionality.
Heed “CEM says” … Slice, splice and CEM.
Keep in mind here the Expansion’s principle of Extension, which applies before the fact and not just after the fact: Parts FOR the whole is as much a phenomenon as parts OF the whole. (A phenomenon copiously evident in the Burgess Shale.) There is a reason (!) for the emergence of entity appendages, from arms and legs to steps and messages. This extension phenomenon is the forwarding link between evolution and development. And the genesis of bi-ness phenomena in both.
In extending science (aka Know: KF and KT) to KMmt (Trial, not just try), we can bring it more completely in Accord with the CEM principle. And extending our conceptualized scientist, who like our selfs is needlessly unprincipled. Not yet developed selves. Personally secure perhaps in the comfort of a search for the certain: the lawful -- but too removed from the exigencies of needed functionality: behavior’s problem and solution, missing guiding principles.
Professional observers of action meaning find themselves at a distance from actors and their act meanings.*** Of limited use, that is, for guidance Forward. Informative, but not informative enough. Lacking the augmented intelligence technology that after-the-fact-based AI fails to deliver. The theory FOR, which predictive and/or summary theory OF can never entirely cover nor, in Mind of the R-zone. helpfully explain.
We see more of this shortcoming in attempts to shape behaviors. In apprenticeship the student serves and emulates master artist and/or craftsman behaviors … perhaps to eventually set out on their own path, but acceptance is – and will continue to be a concern. Similarly, reward and punishment schemes and Skinnerian reinforcement programs attack shaping after the fact.
Smacking too much of Find, not Make, and of Learn, not Know, as a developmental strategy for Becoming. A troubling disregard for the World of Possibility here and now AT and ON the Expansion’s Frontier … and for the next step. Can procedural technology do something about this?
***
Technology, compared to science, has the advantage of recapitulating The Expansion … in that its Slice and Splice in search of functionality refracts The Expansion’s behavioral principles of Difion, Extension and CEM. Frontier thinking needs procedural technology – as provided by The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture’s transfiguration and the R-transform.
The molecular Mind. Thinking about thinking, to use the B-speak vernacular. But we need to extend Mind within the step, to pursue “minding” differences that make “minding” differences, as here The Expansion and the Nature of Things enable us to see beyond the constraints of B-ness and B-speak. To See more, as when step’s sensEry Mind capabilities add to body’s sensOry Mind capacities – theoretically speaking. With “grounding” in The Expansion-Nature of Things and the S-universe, not just in the B-universe. To Say more.#
And, especially, grounding in The Conjecture’s implications for the human condition. Both The Expansion and the Nature of Things are fundamental and foundational to our Grasp of problems and solutions: The Expansion’s principles of Difion, Extension and CEM; the Nature of Things’ constants of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuities of step and of body.
Perhaps we should review our conception of “alchemy.” It is familiar to us now via the scientific establishment as a primitive precursor to science. But it seems in practice to have been a mid-point in the history of technology … an attempt to change this or that by transformation. To aid health as well as wealth. It was disaster in the former, not the latter, that doomed alchemic endeavor in China’s past.
Alchemy might better be viewed as pioneering, not primitive. Spear points and cave wall drawings are the more primitive, as technology evinced itself as a shaping of tools and procedures. We might better be celebrating the tools and procedures of today as informed by an alchemy of The Expansion-Nature of Things principles … were it not sadly the case that modern procedural alchemy is not that yet so far advanced.
We have got to do something about behavior. Behaviors are our problem. But behavior must be our solution. Behavior as molecular steps, not as instances. Conceptual and primitive, oppressed and deflated in the B-speak role of “behavioral entity.” Lead, not gold. In need of a productive alchemy – i.e., the R-transform from the B-universe to the S-universe, from the conceptual “behaviors” to the theoretical step and especially the molecular step.
***
* This is not the “family of meaning” as described by Wittgenstein, which focuses on interpersonal agreement enabled by linguistic and/or experiential contexts. This is more to the point of understanding – i.e., a Grasp of WICF and not just-WITA.
**Observers often focus on populations instead of communities. As, for example, in theories ABOUT evolution (e.g., species survival), macro-economics (e.g., “inflation”) and politics (e.g., “populism”). Statistics come into play, procedurally. Statistical significance points to a non-chance condition: i.e., probability. Something with a One-ness less than natural law or human statute, but with some guidance utility. Correlations indicate some degree of similarity. Distribution of differences assists in identity. But the selves of community and individual, mindful of the R-zone, need more: an operating system. There is no shortage of recipes around for agency (“how to” behaviors), yet we lack a Grasp of behavioral architecture to build new steps – and our selves.
*** With a corresponding difference between action truth (e.g., logical, causal) and act truth (e.g., reasonable)?
# Behavior is only as helpful as the language with which we talk about it. And vice versa. It’s their needed bi-ness: bi-ness of step and language is critical to their CEM productivity, to our thinking about thinking, to procedural technology’s contributions to human development. What is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA), with what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) overlooked – i.e., the larger picture – spells disaster for what is called for (WICF). (Thus B-speak “behavior” is its own worst enemy. Familiar conceptually as an instance and/or category, it is confounded and confuses needed theoretical molecularity for behavioral architecture. It lacks appreciation for the R-zone and the O.S. needed R-path. Hence “Step.” More in Accord with The Expansion’s Frontier condition. More suitable as unit for Adept’s behavioral architecture experiments. [See Community {R-word} vs. community {B-speak}.])
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
The bi-perspective, viewing the Expansion’s extension forward from Big Bang together with seeing it later in cross section(s), makes it clear that a purely ahistorical picture needs a companion historical picture. To Grasp functionality completely and accurately, the ahistorical “X = f(Y)” needs the assistance of the historical “DIF => DIF” (from “f” to “=>” … as temporal adjustments to the concept of “causation” illustrate).
Why a discipline and not just a field of practices? Consider that us humans are born with unequal capacities and in unequal circumstance. These inequalities will persist – however they come to vary In quality and quantity. How then can we come to the equality of “We, the people”? AT and IN the next step, the condition we share. We need a discipline that attends to the technical development of the shared next step, extending that step molecularly beyond current limited practices.
We have already suggested that IN and BY (Expansion) principle procedural technology can solve the problem that Hardin posed as the “Tragedy of the Commons.” His needed functionality of “conscience” can be extended from the limited calculus of self’ functionality/dysfunctionality (“good-bad”) to include one of Selves’ Functionality/Needed Functionality. We have “sins of omission” that rival “sins of commission.”
And we have also pointed out that “the mind-body problem” is an artifact of B-ness: Behavior has been coopted and deflated by entity in B-spacetime. But if we apply the pragmatic precept to separate behavior and entity; then conceptual “mind” is transformed to behavioral “Mind” … where it finds a productive CEM relationship with “Move.”
Also, we can get a much different Read of G..G. Simpson’s point (to attend all phenomena to which principles apply, not just principles that apply to all phenomena) than the Science magazine readers gave it. They saw it as self-serving for the Biology professional observer community. As, for example, to legitimize questions of “How come?” and “What for?”. (The Conjecture corrects the shortsightedness of B-universe observers who object to these questions .. questions which like “What might be?” and “What ought to be?” and the theoretical construct of “purpose” are grounded in the larger Involve of The Expansion and Nature of Things – and very relevant AT, ON the Frontier FOR and Before our next step, which may be a matter of survival.)
Now with The Expansion-Nature of Things transfiguration and its two universes, the human condition can be seen to include phenomena subject to principles and/or laws ( a needed distinction) … and behavioral phenomena that need to be seen before, and not just after, the fact. Including, Simpson said, the scientist’s own observer behavior. To which no reader comment was addressed.
And then there is the “second dictionary” project, in which behavioral materiality would be extracted from B-speak and then that which B-speak has omitted is added in … to produce should we say, “S-speak” (e.g., R-words)? In S-speak the “words” would be mettles. An introduction would explain how these mettles are to be used linguistically. This language (“HATS”?) composes mettle contributions from Humanity, Art, Technology and mind-bound Science, melding them to give meanings (and meaning) to mettles (which are busy with their own functional development): to what is needed before the fact for the next step. Meanings that behavioral architecture gave them before the fact. Phenomenally speaking, this mode of behavior has been practiced already. Consider, for example, procedural techs of smiling and bowing in person-to-person meetings, gestures and emphases in conversation and font and punctuation in print.*
For actors AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion, poised for the next step with which to extend their own expansions, the Mind technologies of professional observers (e.g., psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology) have had limited functionality. Notably, but not only, the difficulties imposed by observers on actors in the communicative transaction between their observations and the actors’ use of those observations. Not just those of jargon and thoughtknots.** Most significantly, professional observers have failed to Grasp all that is IN and OF consequence – i.e., the totality of materiality.
We can stipulate the principle of communicability: of a “Tell CEM Read” between communicators as a companion to the Tell CEM Reads between observers and the observed. The two “facets” of what is called for (WICF). Help, a crucial needed functionality, is not going to work without both and without a CEM balance between the two.
Mathematics, logic, statistics and B-speak are technically more to the point of behaviors already taken than to those steps that have to be made before they can be taken. This is B-ness, the influence of B-spacetime and B-speak, focusing on materiality after the fact more than materiality before the fact. And, allied with notions of One-ness, not nearly concerned enough with needed R-zone “as one” capabilities – i.e., Community and Union.
Not much concerned with CEM, which should be operating paradigmatically as theory FOR with method FOR. As method with ratios playing a crucial role, establishing qualitative independence of observed conditions in Accord with the pragmatic precept and bi-ness; then with quantitative ratio imbalances guiding molecular steps forward re needed functionality.
Heed “CEM says” … Slice, splice and CEM.
Keep in mind here the Expansion’s principle of Extension, which applies before the fact and not just after the fact: Parts FOR the whole is as much a phenomenon as parts OF the whole. (A phenomenon copiously evident in the Burgess Shale.) There is a reason (!) for the emergence of entity appendages, from arms and legs to steps and messages. This extension phenomenon is the forwarding link between evolution and development. And the genesis of bi-ness phenomena in both.
In extending science (aka Know: KF and KT) to KMmt (Trial, not just try), we can bring it more completely in Accord with the CEM principle. And extending our conceptualized scientist, who like our selfs is needlessly unprincipled. Not yet developed selves. Personally secure perhaps in the comfort of a search for the certain: the lawful -- but too removed from the exigencies of needed functionality: behavior’s problem and solution, missing guiding principles.
Professional observers of action meaning find themselves at a distance from actors and their act meanings.*** Of limited use, that is, for guidance Forward. Informative, but not informative enough. Lacking the augmented intelligence technology that after-the-fact-based AI fails to deliver. The theory FOR, which predictive and/or summary theory OF can never entirely cover nor, in Mind of the R-zone. helpfully explain.
We see more of this shortcoming in attempts to shape behaviors. In apprenticeship the student serves and emulates master artist and/or craftsman behaviors … perhaps to eventually set out on their own path, but acceptance is – and will continue to be a concern. Similarly, reward and punishment schemes and Skinnerian reinforcement programs attack shaping after the fact.
Smacking too much of Find, not Make, and of Learn, not Know, as a developmental strategy for Becoming. A troubling disregard for the World of Possibility here and now AT and ON the Expansion’s Frontier … and for the next step. Can procedural technology do something about this?
Technology, compared to science, has the advantage of recapitulating The Expansion … in that its Slice and Splice in search of functionality refracts The Expansion’s behavioral principles of Difion, Extension and CEM. Frontier thinking needs procedural technology – as provided by The Expansion-Nature of Things Conjecture’s transfiguration and the R-transform.
The molecular Mind. Thinking about thinking, to use the B-speak vernacular. But we need to extend Mind within the step, to pursue “minding” differences that make “minding” differences, as here The Expansion and the Nature of Things enable us to see beyond the constraints of B-ness and B-speak. To See more, as when step’s sensEry Mind capabilities add to body’s sensOry Mind capacities – theoretically speaking. With “grounding” in The Expansion-Nature of Things and the S-universe, not just in the B-universe. To Say more.#
And, especially, grounding in The Conjecture’s implications for the human condition. Both The Expansion and the Nature of Things are fundamental and foundational to our Grasp of problems and solutions: The Expansion’s principles of Difion, Extension and CEM; the Nature of Things’ constants of partial order, consequentiality and discontinuities of step and of body.
Perhaps we should review our conception of “alchemy.” It is familiar to us now via the scientific establishment as a primitive precursor to science. But it seems in practice to have been a mid-point in the history of technology … an attempt to change this or that by transformation. To aid health as well as wealth. It was disaster in the former, not the latter, that doomed alchemic endeavor in China’s past.
Alchemy might better be viewed as pioneering, not primitive. Spear points and cave wall drawings are the more primitive, as technology evinced itself as a shaping of tools and procedures. We might better be celebrating the tools and procedures of today as informed by an alchemy of The Expansion-Nature of Things principles … were it not sadly the case that modern procedural alchemy is not that yet so far advanced.
We have got to do something about behavior. Behaviors are our problem. But behavior must be our solution. Behavior as molecular steps, not as instances. Conceptual and primitive, oppressed and deflated in the B-speak role of “behavioral entity.” Lead, not gold. In need of a productive alchemy – i.e., the R-transform from the B-universe to the S-universe, from the conceptual “behaviors” to the theoretical step and especially the molecular step.
* This is not the “family of meaning” as described by Wittgenstein, which focuses on interpersonal agreement enabled by linguistic and/or experiential contexts. This is more to the point of understanding – i.e., a Grasp of WICF and not just-WITA.
**Observers often focus on populations instead of communities. As, for example, in theories ABOUT evolution (e.g., species survival), macro-economics (e.g., “inflation”) and politics (e.g., “populism”). Statistics come into play, procedurally. Statistical significance points to a non-chance condition: i.e., probability. Something with a One-ness less than natural law or human statute, but with some guidance utility. Correlations indicate some degree of similarity. Distribution of differences assists in identity. But the selves of community and individual, mindful of the R-zone, need more: an operating system. There is no shortage of recipes around for agency (“how to” behaviors), yet we lack a Grasp of behavioral architecture to build new steps – and our selves.
*** With a corresponding difference between action truth (e.g., logical, causal) and act truth (e.g., reasonable)?
# Behavior is only as helpful as the language with which we talk about it. And vice versa. It’s their needed bi-ness: bi-ness of step and language is critical to their CEM productivity, to our thinking about thinking, to procedural technology’s contributions to human development. What is said about (WISA) what is talked about (WITA), with what there is to be talked about (WTITBTA) overlooked – i.e., the larger picture – spells disaster for what is called for (WICF). (Thus B-speak “behavior” is its own worst enemy. Familiar conceptually as an instance and/or category, it is confounded and confuses needed theoretical molecularity for behavioral architecture. It lacks appreciation for the R-zone and the O.S. needed R-path. Hence “Step.” More in Accord with The Expansion’s Frontier condition. More suitable as unit for Adept’s behavioral architecture experiments. [See Community {R-word} vs. community {B-speak}.])
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S