Pictorial Cognition Explained.

[MrMikeludo]

So the topic I would like to address in this thread is the introduction, to the world, of a brand new concept, that I am going to label: “Super Michael's Theory Of Picture Super Powers,” and/or, my claim, that if I - “Super Mike,” were to draw a picture, such as this:

http://www.awdsgn.com/dailyjournal/jul0 ... 070209.htm

Well, then – IF I, “Super Mike,” were to actually draw THAT picture, well, then, Super Mike COULD actually fly through the air, like a Superman, simply because I had pictorially represented the concept, for the world to see with their eyes alone.

And we all know people can't really fly, can they? Of course they can, if they simply harness their understanding of the laws of nature, and/or this:

http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynam ... aws-motion

Then they can build themselves, one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2cydZgUaqE

A “Batplane,” and, then, a human being can become like a Superman, and actually go flying.

Alright, it's not really Super Michael's Theory Of Picture Super Powers that I am going to introduce to the world, but the concept of “pictorial cognition.”

So what pictorial cognition is, is simply the way “pictorial communication” functions, which, believe it or nor, no one has ever fully explained before, or, rather, no one has ever been able to fully prove before, and in an ipso facto manner as well.

So, essentially, this is the way pictorial cognition – and/or pictorial communication, actually works, and which is, a person draws a picture of a: BALL, and then, they show that picture to another human being, and they will have effectually communicated: “Ball,” and/or the tangible form mass of the ball, and which is also, a: noun, and/or three dimensional tangible form mass/noun – matter.

And then, after the person, and/or especially young child, learns how to draw, they can simply pictorially communicate their learned understanding of all the three dimensional tangible form nouns that surrounds us in our daily existence, such as: BALL – PLANE – BILLY – SALLY – CHAIR – SPOON – ETC., and, then, AS another human being looks at the “two dimensional pictorial communication,” which Billy has drawn, they – the human being looking at the picture, can know exactly “what” “it” is that “Billy is trying to pictorially communicate,” of course.

But that is simply the pictorial communication of the “three dimensional tangible form nouns,” also of course.

So, then, how could any child “effectually communicate” while accessing, and/or speaking – and/or drawing a picture of, ONLY “nouns,” and such: BALL – BILLY – PLANE – CHAIR – etc, well, of course, not very well.

And we do know that every sentence that human beings speak, is comprised of, basically, three dimensional tangible form masses: nouns – noun phrases, and non tangible form verbs/verb phrases, and such as: WALKING – MOVEMENT, etc, and/or this:

http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com/stepbys ... -tutorial/

Except, THAT really is NOT a “picture of someone WALKING,” is it?

Of course it is NOT, it is simply a picture of a “human” type being, with their “legs spread out,” and their “arms swung forwards and backwards,” of course.

So, then, how could THAT “two dimensional pictorial representation” actually “communicate walking,” and/or “movement?” Well, because human beings have “lived in three dimensional reality,” and have – as they are living in reality, formed this:

“One thing has become clear to scientists: memory is absolutely crucial to our consciousness. Says Janellen Huttenlocher, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago: There's almost nothing you do, from perception to thinking, that doesn't draw continuously on your memory. It can't be otherwise, since there's really no such thing as the present - 'We do not have a memory system in the brain,' says James McGaugh, director of the Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. 'We have memory systems, each playing a different role – All of these different systems are ultimately stored in the brain's cortex – When everything is going right, these different systems work together seamlessly - But you are never aware that your memory has been formed, bit by bit, like some invisible edifice inside your brain'...” Michael D. Lemonick Time

And that is, basically, the way “pictorial cognition,” and/or pictorial “communication” works, and how we can simply, and effectually, and “pictorially,” communicate “emotions,” all uniquely human emotions, and which – functioning “abstractly,” is something that animals simply can not do, so, we can know, that that is the beginning of uniquely human consciousness.

So, if a child wanted to, pictorially, communicate the emotion of “happiness,” they would draw a picture such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw-a-Person_test

And if a child wanted to, pictorially, communicate the emotion of “sadness,” they would draw a picture such as this:

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/ ... about-home

And that is the basic introduction to pictorial cognition.

But, there's a major problem.

Because, while the “thing” that differentiates human beings from animals, is our uniquely human ability to access “abstract functions,” well, studies have shown, this:

“Your dog can recognize you in a photo...” Sam Webb

Because studies have shown that animals CAN experience a basic level of “abstract communication,” and/or read a two dimensional picture, so, that: “communicating emotions two dimensionally and pictorially,” is NOT what “defines us as human beings."

But, there's an even bigger problem, as far as attempting to reach any “higher” degree of “pictorial communication,” as far as simply drawing pictures of: three dimensional tangible form nouns/noun phrases – PEOPLE – BUILDINGS TREES, etc, and non tangible for verbs: EMOTIONS – MOVEMENT, etc, are concerned.

So, does anyone know what the BIG problem is?

Here, I'll give you a clue, a video of my dog Pavlov:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUPsU1JC1zA

Naw, her name is really Sky, and here's another clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZ2WIAX0QE

[MrMikeludo]

Now we also know that even animals can “paint a picture,” and quite well also, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvEEooI4pDA

And this, rather well rendered representational picture, again by an Elephant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7meBvOEyuzQ

And this, Kandinsky(ish) picture, by a Dolphin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_PjV8rRgcU

And these Cats, painting a “Jackson Pollock:”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-fq2zQzqfo

And now they even sell “beginning paint kits” for animals, such as this:

https://laughingsquid.com/kitty-casso-a ... -for-cats/

And of course the entire world knows that the very definition of a “bird brain,” is the ability to produce simple, musical, tunes, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoEVIWVcEVg

And too, even mosquitoes can “harmonize:”

“Mosquitoes Harmonize to Find a Mate - The annoying buzz of a mosquito means a lot more to the bugs than you might imagine. Mosquitoes rely on harmonizing the 'songs' produced by their wing beats to find an appropriate mate — most importantly one of the same species and, of course, the opposite sex...” Live Science

And animals can even learn to play musical instruments, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmp8xCAnrZQ

And here is “Nora” actually playing the piano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJDXayM5FM

And “harmonizing” with a human accompany her, on another piano, actually.

And, of course, we all know the reason birds sing so well, is that it is a primordial form of communication, such as this:

“It can start as early as 4:00 a.m. and last several hours. Birds can sing at any time of day, but during the dawn chorus their songs are often louder, livelier, and more frequent. It's mostly made up of male birds, attempting to attract mates...” Wikipedia

But also we know, the primordial communication, produced by even “bird brains” - literally, can be quite extensive, in addition to “learned” and “developed,” and in addition to “exceeding the singing capabilities of human beings,” such as this:

“How and why birds sing: Songbirds learn their songs and perform them using a specialized voice box called a syrinx . Vocally, they’re in a league of their own. These adaptations have been remarkably successful—songbirds make up almost half of the world’s 10,000 bird species including warblers, thrushes, and sparrows. The vast majority of non-songbird species make simpler sounds that are instinctual rather than learned - Studies have also shown that songs play a crucial role in attracting and impressing potential mates and may signal the overall health of the singer. As in humans, singing in birds is often a chance to show off - Typically a song is defined as a relatively structured vocalization produced while attracting a mate or defending a territory. Calls tend to be shorter, less rhythmic sounds used to communicate a nearby threat or an individual’s location. Each species and individual has a variety of songs and calls used in different contexts that together make up its repertoire - Many species engage in 'duetting' - The songbird syrinx makes vocal gymnastics possible–for example the Northern Cardinal is a able to sweep through more notes than are on a piano keyboard in just a tenth of a second - making them the envy of human vocalists everywhere - In songbirds, each side of the syrinx is independently controlled, allowing birds to produce two unrelated pitches at once. Some birds even have the ability to sing rising and falling notes simultaneously, like the Wood Thrush in its final trill. We can only imagine what musical heights human vocalists could reach with abilities like that - While some birds hatch knowing the songs they will sing as adults, the true songbirds have to learn how to communicate effectively...” Cornell Lab Bird Academy

So we can also know that the “Thing” that defines us as human beings can NOT possibly be our ability to “make pictures,” because not only can EVERY human being on the face of the earth produce a picture, as well as can animals, but we also know that there are no images of any things within our minds, and everything is translated into the “characteristic digital language of the brain,” and we also know that every human being on the face of the earth can “sing a song,” to a certain degree, as well as knowing that a “bird's brain,” literally, can literally “learn to sing songs better than most human beings,” so, we can also know that the thing that defines us as human beings can not be the ability to simply sing songs, and/or produce music.

In addition, as I said, when understanding the function of pictorial cognition, there is a much bigger problem, in attempting to “communicate pictorially” emotions, and/or anything actually, and, remember too I said that “Pavlov” could explain it for us:

“Pavlovian Conditioning Pavlov (1902) started from the idea that there are some things that a dog does not need to learn. For example, dogs don’t learn to salivate whenever they see food. This reflex is ‘hard wired’ into the dog. In behaviorist terms, it is an unconditioned response (i.e. a stimulus-response connection that required no learning). In behaviorist terms, we write: Unconditioned Stimulus (Food) > Unconditioned Response (Salivate) Pavlov showed the existence of the unconditioned response by presenting a dog with a bowl of food and the measuring its salivary secretions - Pavlov discovered that any object or event which the dogs learnt to associate with food (such as the lab assistant) would trigger a response, so he realized that he had made an important scientific discovery. Accordingly, he devoted the rest of his career to studying this type of learning - Pavlov knew that somehow, the dogs in his lab had learned to associate food with his lab assistant. This must have been learned, because at one point the dogs did not do it, and there came a point where they started, so their behavior had changed. A change in behavior of this type must be the result of learning - In behaviorist terms, the lab assistant was originally a neutral stimulus. It is called neutral because it produces no response. What had happened was that the neutral stimulus (the lab assistant) had become associated with an unconditioned stimulus (food) - In his experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral stimulus. Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on its own. As you might expect, the bell on its own now caused an increase in salivation. So the dog had learned an association between the bell and the food and a new behavior had been learnt. Because this response was learned (or conditioned), it is called a conditioned response. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus - Pavlov found that for associations to be made, the two stimuli had to be presented close together in time. He called this the law of temporal contiguity. If the time between the conditioned stimulus (bell) and unconditioned stimulus (food) is too great, then learning will not occur. Pavlov and his studies of classical conditioning have become famous since his early work between 1890-1930. Classical conditioning is "classical" in that it is the first systematic study of basic laws of learning / conditioning - To summarize, classical conditioning (later developed by John Watson) involves learning to associate an unconditioned stimulus that already brings about a particular response (i.e. a reflex) with a new (conditioned) stimulus, so that the new stimulus brings about the same response...” Saul McLeod – Simply Psychology

So, we know for a fact that the way simple, elementary pictorial cognition, functions, is by a person pictorially – two dimensionally, representing a “three dimensional tangible form mass nouns,” of any and/or all kinds, and such as: ME – YOU – BILLY – SUSY – TREE – HOUSE – CHURCH – ETC, and, especially, “THE” pinnacle of “three dimensional tangible for mass/nouns,” and/or pure, “abstracted,” color:

“Color: one of the physical attributes of mass.”

And then becoming capable of accessing a, slightly, higher form of “pictorial communication,” by simply, pictorially – two dimensionally, representing “emotions,” and such as: SADNESS – HAPINESS – ETC, but, while we also know that, first, even the “lowest” forms of animals can do that, such as: BIRDS – DOGS – ELEPHANTS – ETC, and, we also know, that EVERY “child” that has ever existed can also know, and/or experience, that, and so, we can also know that NONE of those forms of communication could ever be considered “uniquely human,” and, now, with the psychologist Pavlov introducing his “Law of temporal contiguity,” we can also know the “major problem” in attempting to “communicate anything abstractly,” as uniquely human beings, IF all we EVER do is “learn how to pictorially represent three dimensional tangible form mass/nouns – while including any and all 'abstractions'/color,” and nothing else, such as “pictorial syntax.”

So, in all honesty, would anyone like to contribute to the understanding, at this point?

[TheVat]

What do you make of people with autism, like the well-know animal behaviorist and activist Temple Grandin, who report that the most of their thinking is done in mental pictures? It's often reported as a cause of difficulty in learning to communicate in words (though Grandin overcome those difficulties beautifully), but quite useful in many kinds of intellectual pursuits where visualization and image manipulation is key. And the arts, as well, obviously.

Side note: please make future posts shorter, address a specific point, and do not ladle in quite so many links, so that other members can engage with you on the topic. Every online community has certain protocols and standards for interaction. Please follow ours.

[MrMikeludo]

Alright, so the problem, the main problem, with trying to articulate any pictorial communication, without ever accessing the function of visual pictorial syntax, is the fact that human beings spend every day of our lives, actually “living,” and/or experiencing things simultaneously, and again throughout our entire lifetimes, and every day of our lives.

In addition, we know that human beings form our “consciousness,” while actually interacting with other human beings, and while actually “doing” things, and while also simultaneously experiencing every kind of emotion that human beings can ever possible experience.

BUT, we also spend our entire lifetimes forming memories – through our exposure to every thing we experience on a daily basis, while forming those memories, “subconsciously:”

“One thing has become clear to scientists: memory is absolutely crucial to our consciousness. Says Janellen Huttenlocher, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago: There's almost nothing you do, from perception to thinking, that doesn't draw continuously on your memory. It can't be otherwise, since there's really no such thing as the present - 'We do not have a memory system in the brain,' says James McGaugh, director of the Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. 'We have memory systems, each playing a different role – All of these different systems are ultimately stored in the brain's cortex – When everything is going right, these different systems work together seamlessly - But you are never aware that your memory has been formed, bit by bit, like some invisible edifice inside your brain'...” Michael D. Lemonick Time

And while actually spending every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, actually developing:

“Pavlovian Conditioning - Pavlov discovered that any object or event which the dogs learnt to associate with food (such as the lab assistant) would trigger a response, so he realized that he had made an important scientific discovery - Pavlov knew that somehow, the dogs in his lab had learned to associate food with his lab assistant. This must have been learned, because at one point the dogs did not do it, and there came a point where they started, so their behavior had changed. A change in behavior of this type must be the result of learning - What had happened was that the neutral stimulus (the lab assistant) had become associated with an unconditioned stimulus (food) - In his experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral stimulus. Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on its own. As you might expect, the bell on its own now caused an increase in salivation. So the dog had learned an association between the bell and the food and a new behavior had been learnt. Because this response was learned (or conditioned), it is called a conditioned response. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus...” Saul McLeod – Simply Psychology

An infinite amount of infinitely subjective associated – “conditioned,” Pavlovian “responses,” to LITERALLY the (almost) infinite amount of individual experiences, every single human being, in the entire world, experiences, every single second, of every single minute, of every single hour, of every single day, that we are alive.

Ergo...

[Eclogite]

So, in all honesty, would anyone like to contribute to the understanding, at this point?

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

All animals communicate. We know this.

Some animals have a richly textured form of communication, some of which is instinctive and some of which is learned. We know this.

Some animals can create pictures of a kind. We know this.

Humans can create pictures - 2D representations of 3D objects - and take it a stage further, creating metaphors of emotions. We know this.

So what are you saying, in that first post, that we don't alreadly know?

[BadgerJelly]

Mik -

I can only assume you are referring to the "emotional content/association" of certain actions and objects? If so, yeah! One hell of a problem in both bringing people around to look at the difficulties as anything other than superficial. We tend to gloss over a lot of things in life due to practicalities.

I noticed you said "communicate" and I would not really say this is the best word to use here. If we, or a child, draws something then this is not necessarily an attempt to communicate to others, one could easily say it is an attempt to understand yourself and/or an "expression" of yourself manifested as a pictogram (symbolic).

If this is anywhere near what you are talking about then I can only hopefully ask if you're familiar with Carl Jung? He is a rich source of information in this area.

This is also an interesting vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVgHMx5RnAg

Here it is not a question of "knowing" it is an illusion, but actually be able to switch back and forth between the illusionary image and the actual image without natural habit interfering.

Maybe the dolphin is trying to say "Thanks for al the fish"? :D

note: I don't believe this makes you either one or the other of what the video says! I see no reason why someone couldn't "retrain" themselves to flick between the two. It would, I imagine, take concerted and persistent effort though (skill combined with ability)

[MrMikeludo]

Mik -

I can only assume you are referring to the "emotional content/association" of certain actions and objects? If so, yeah! One hell of a problem in both bringing people around to look at the difficulties as anything other than superficial. We tend to gloss over a lot of things in life due to practicalities.

I noticed you said "communicate" and I would not really say this is the best word to use here. If we, or a child, draws something then this is not necessarily an attempt to communicate to others, one could easily say it is an attempt to understand yourself and/or an "expression" of yourself manifested as a pictogram (symbolic).

If this is anywhere near what you are talking about then I can only hopefully ask if you're familiar with Carl Jung? He is a rich source of information in this area.

This is also an interesting vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVgHMx5RnAg

Here it is not a question of "knowing" it is an illusion, but actually be able to switch back and forth between the illusionary image and the actual image without natural habit interfering.

Maybe the dolphin is trying to say "Thanks for al the fish"? :D

note: I don't believe this makes you either one or the other of what the video says! I see no reason why someone couldn't "retrain" themselves to flick between the two. It would, I imagine, take concerted and persistent effort though (skill combined with ability)

BadgerJelly: I got both answers CORRECT, in the video. But I am NIETHER a "schizophrenic," nor a "genius," I know, I failed the test. There's a trick to being able to answer both questions correctly. Would you like to know what it is?

[Eclogite]

So what are you saying, in that first post, that we don't alreadly know?

[BadgerJelly]

Mik -

Many people posted on the channel that they go the answer CORRECT. The point was not to answer the question correctly. The point was to see if you could subjectively see the difference (I cannot, but after practice I managed to see it a little rather than just "know" the illusion.)

I would like to hear your "trick", but have to be honest and say I believe you may have fallen prey to misunderstanding the point of the exercise like many people on youtube blatantly did. I can suspend my opinion for now though just trying to be honest because by doing so I am guessing the subject of subjectivity is something you are trying to get at. I would prefer if you were more direct because you can be damn sure from me that if you pose a question as if you have an answer then I would be very interested to hear your answer (no need to be coy about it.)

[MrMikeludo]

BadgerJelly:

Mik -

Many people posted on the channel that they go the answer CORRECT. The point was not to answer the question correctly. The point was to see if you could subjectively see the difference (I cannot, but after practice I managed to see it a little rather than just "know" the illusion.)

I would like to hear your "trick", but have to be honest and say I believe you may have fallen prey to misunderstanding the point of the exercise like many people on youtube blatantly did. I can suspend my opinion for now though just trying to be honest because by doing so I am guessing the subject of subjectivity is something you are trying to get at. I would prefer if you were more direct because you can be damn sure from me that if you pose a question as if you have an answer then I would be very interested to hear your answer (no need to be coy about it.)

Wait, I'm a little confused, so there is NO "correct" answer?

[BadgerJelly]

Stop evading ... what is your "trick"?

[Eclogite]

Wait, I'm a little confused, so there is NO "correct" answer?

I agree with Badger Jelly. You are being evasive. Answer his question, eliminate hints and clues. Communicate directly. If you choose to ignore this I shall be wearing my mod hat next time.

[MrMikeludo]

Alright, so here is the major problem with attempting to “pictorially communicate,” quite literally, anything while accessing only the elementary elements, of pictorial cognition, that had been available to “ARTISANS” all through the recorded history of the world, and of tangible form mass nouns, and/or three dimensional “things,” and while including ALL “pure things,” and/or “abstractions,” and/or color, only.

Ok, so, as far as the “Fine art art world” is concerned, this is what I mean: Suppose you begin to eat a “Big red, LUCIOUS strawberry, dipped in chocolate, and honey,” and while “Sitting at the Le Corner Cafe,” in France, and while “On reality television,” while getting paid money - for simply consuming that strawberry, dipped in chocolate and honey, and while also “Sitting at a high visibility cafe in France,” and then, unbeknownst to you, the producers, of the Reality Television series, had hired Pamela Anderson to walk up and “Kiss you right on the mouth,” as you were “consuming the Strawberry,” and while Pamela was “Wearing that famous RED swimsuit,” that she wore on television, and with all that “stuff” “busting out everywhere,” you know, all of that “sexual stuff” busting out everywhere, and then, as Pamela – in her “Red swim suit,” with all that “sexual stuff busting out everywhere,” “Kissed you right on the mouth,” well then imagine Pamela “Stuck her hand down your pants pocket,” and then “Jammed a million dollars down your pants,” well, what do you think would then happen, “neurophysilogically” only, of course?

Well, only this:

“At a purely chemical level (just as the injection of) heroin triggers release of dopamine, so too every experience humans find enjoyable (pleasurable), from embracing a lover to savoring chocolate (or strawberries, or honey) amounts to little more than an explosion of dopamine in the central nervous system – dopamine can be elevated by a hug, a kiss, a word of praise – by exposure to (all mindless) novelty stimulus (TO ALL mass/nouns) - Dopamine exercises extraordinary power over learning and memory (AS Pavlov's Dogs proved) – Dopamine, like most biologically important molecules, must be kept within strict bounds. Too much causes the hallucinations, and bizarre ideas, of schizophrenia - Addicts brains have responded defensively and reduced the number of sites, or receptors, to which dopamine can bind, so while addicts begin taking drugs to feel high, they end up taking them in order to not feel low...” J. Madeline Nash

Ok, so now imagine the next day, after you wake up from experiencing all of that “pure pleasure,” AND while remembering “Pavlov's dogs,” you decide to go to an “art museum,” walk in and “see” this:

https://www.houzz.com/photos/14494734/M ... rn-artwork

So, what do you think would happen: Inside YOUR mind ONLY - AND as "Pavlov's Dogs" proved?

Alright, so now lets switch the “particulars” - ALL “perceivable tangible form mass nouns” AND “non perceivable non tangible form verbs,” in that EXACT same scenario, such as this:

Ok, so, as far as the “Fine art art world” is concerned, this is what I mean: Suppose you begin to eat a “Big red, LUCIOUS strawberry, dipped in chocolate, and honey,” and while “Sitting at the Le Corner Cafe,” in France, BUT, unbeknownst to you, you are allergic to strawberries, and, as you begin to consume them, simply biting into them causes you to experience an extraordinary allergic reaction, while you are “On reality television,” and so, because you are on television, you begin to become extremely embarrassed, and then, because you got sick, the producers of the television series decide that they are not going to pay you, and then, as the producers of the television series inform you that they are not going to pay you, Hulk Hogan – in HIS “Red suite,” walks up to you and “Punches you in the face,” and then, after The Hulk – in his “Red Suit,” punches you in the face, you call a police officer, but, instead of arresting The Hulk, the police officer gives you a ticket, for “Getting sick in public,” and, then, as you are walking home, from the “restaurant – where you got sick, and The Hulk 'punched you in the face,” you trip, and smash your face of the curb, and then look down on the curb ans see the “Red Blood,” that has gushed out of your face, but then, eventually make it back to your hotel room, and lay down on the “Big RED comforter on your bed,” and then look on your nightstand, and see that you have been robbed, of all of your money, and “Out of your RED wallet.”

So then, imagine the next day you try to “recover,” from all of that TRAMA, and then you decide to go to an "art museum," walk in and see, this:

https://www.houzz.com/photos/14494734/M ... rn-artwork

Ergo...

ps Here's the "trick:" "Serial memory processing compares a memory to a target stimulus, while parallel processing carries out multiple operations simultaneously." Serial and Parallel Processing. Boundless Anatomy and Physiology Boundless, ‎29 ‎Sep. ‎2016. Retrieved ‎19 ‎Aug. ‎2017

PSS: I came home from the Market, and went into the drawer to get Sky a treat, and, as I did that, she "heard" the sound of me rustling the bag - which contains her treats, and then Sky "Ran into the room," and I looked down, next to where Sky was standing, and saw a "Puddle of drool on the floor" - from Sky's anticipation;)

[BadgerJelly]

Two different reactions obviously. Where is Neuro and his IOR anecdote?

I have always found this interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhibition_of_return

Especially in relation to neurogenesis.

Mik -

You are saying this is the same as the illusion of the mask or are not bothering with that anymore. I thought you said you had a "trick" you were going to tell me? If you tell me yours I'll tell you (again, but with more precision) why there is no "correct" answer per se.

[MrMikeludo]

BadgerJelly:

Two different reactions obviously. Where is Neuro and his IOR anecdote?

I have always found this interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhibition_of_return

Especially in relation to neurogenesis.

Mik -

You are saying this is the same as the illusion of the mask or are not bothering with that anymore. I thought you said you had a "trick" you were going to tell me? If you tell me yours I'll tell you (again, but with more precision) why there is no "correct" answer per se.

Now I think YOU missed the point.

So, answer the question, if you can:

"Serial memory processing compares a memory to a target stimulus, while parallel processing carries out multiple operations simultaneously.'
ERGO..."

[BadgerJelly]

I'm waiting ... and I'm patient ...

[MrMikeludo]

BadgerJelly:

I'm waiting ... and I'm patient ...

Well BadgerJelly those examples prove that no human being could ever articulate a concept by simply accessing “tangible form mass nouns/noun phrases,” and/or “non tangible form verbs/verb phrases,” either, because it is simply impossible, again, just as those two, diametrically opposed, examples enable us to prove.

Because, in one example, viewing the “noun,” of the:”Red color,” accessed the “Pavlovian effectuated pleasurable conditioned response,” in the first subject, upon their “viewing of the two dimensional pictorial representation of the noun,” while – simultaneously, viewing the “noun,” of the:”Red color,” accessed the “Pavlovian effectuated purely painful conditioned response,” in the second subject, upon THEIR “viewing" of the SAME "two dimensional pictorial representation of the noun."

And ALL of "it" purely SUBCONSCIOUSLY.

Ergo, it is literally “impossible” to “articulate a thought at an ipso facto level while accessing ONLY tangible form mass nouns/noun phrases and/or non tangible form verbs/verb phrases,” and which is EXACTLY why “two dimensional pictorial representational art,” was NEVER afforded a “Fine Art” label throughout the factual, actual, and literal “recorded history of mankind.”

AND, just as YOU testified:”The 'associated cognition' can NEVER – EVER, 'supersede' the FACTUAL REALITY of ANYTHING,” just as YOU testified, yourself - remember?

ERGO...

PS The "trick" is to process the information within your "peripheral mind" - your "three dimensional peripheral mind."

[BadgerJelly]

Mik -

Apologies, I missed the edit you must have made whilst I was typing. Anyway, better wind down gotta be up in the morn.

[MrMikeludo]

Mik -

Apologies, I missed the edit you must have made whilst I was typing. Anyway, better wind down gotta be up in the morn.

Goodnight, BadgerJelly.

[MrMikeludo]

Alright, so we know that a human being “artisan” could never articulate any simple two dimensional pictorial communicative apparatus, and/or “picture,” by simply accessing only two dimensional pictorial representations of three dimensional tangible form mass nouns/noun phrases, such as: BILLY – SALLY – TREE – HOUSE – HORSE – ETC, and/or any two dimensional pictorial representations of non tangible form verbs/verb phrases, and so, all through the recorded history of time it wasn't:

“At the beginning of the Renaissance, painters and sculptors were still regarded as members of the artisan class, and occupied a low rung on the social ladder...” Global History – Renaissance Art

And then, in 1480, Leonardo da Vinci “Shaped the invisible:”

“Figurazione delle cose invisible.”

And introduced “Four dimensional non Euclidean projective geometry” to the world 400 years before anyone else, while simply explaining the “four dimensional function of reality:”

"Space Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events. 'All masses and all velocities, and consequently all forces, are relative,' he wrote. Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to write a theory that built space and time out of events alone...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; their's was the absolute grid, within which space itself became (manifest)..." Timothy Ferris - Coming Of Age In The Milky Way

And/or the actual “shaping of the invisible,” actually functioning as Time made manifest, and/or an actual four dimensional space/time continuum, and/or Einstein's relativity.

Now, I know that some people may be having some trouble completely understanding exactly what it is Leonardo did, and how important it was for “transforming” “ART” - “I” - “SAN,” into “Artist,” with a capital “A,” but all we need you know is, this, as Leonardo did explain:

“Mathematics is the only subject that can provide complete and utter universal truths, whereas no other subject can.”

Now, so as to not allow the subject to get bogged down in semantics, let me use this definition, and because we are all intimately familiar with it at the beginning of the twentieth century, and which is the universal function of “binary code:”

“A binary code represents text, computer processor instructions, or other data using any two-symbol system, but often the binary number system's 0 and 1.”

So what Leonardo did, was to “transform” THIS:

“CHAOS: 01000011 01001000 01000001 01001111 01010011
NOISE: 01001110 01001111 01001001 01010011 01000101
DISCORD: 01000100 01001001 01010011 01000011 01001111 01010010 01000100
PAIN: 01010000 01000001 01001001 01001110
SALT: 01010011 01000001 01001100 01010100
DEATH: 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000
MOVE AWAY: 01001101 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01000001 01010111 01000001 01011001.”

Into THIS:

“ORDER: 01001111 01010010 01000100 01000101 01010010
MUSIC: 01001101 01010101 01010011 01001001 01000011
HARMONY: 01001000 01000001 01010010 01001101 01001111 01001110 01011001
PLEASURE: 01010000 01001100 01000101 01000001 01010011 01010101 01010010 01000101
SUGAR: 01010011 01010101 01000111 01000001 01010010
LIFE: 01001100 01001001 01000110 01000101
MOVE TOWARDS: 01001101 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01010100 01001111 01010111 01000001 01010010 01000100 01010011.''

Except, of course, he did it with the “reality,” and not simply the words.

And also when he did it, he was able to directly access the actual “universal language of reality,” and/or Time made manifest, and also – and simultaneously, access the “universal language of the collective consciousness of mankind:”

"The equivalent of the machine language of the brain, in (Alan) Gavin's view, is very complex electromagnetic field con figurations...(And) after several years of painstaking mapping of these physic never-never lands, (Gavin) discovered an extraordinary thing: The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms..." Judith Hooper -The3-pound Universe.

And/or “Life:”

“One way to think about this view is to imagine spatial relationships as a kind of universal language that the brain uses no matter what specific language - social, moral, engineering, poetic, we are using at the moment...(George) Lakoff believes that he can tie this mental language to the physical structure of the brain and its maps: 'When you think about dynamic structure, you begin to realize that there are a lot of things that are analogous with life, (but) life is more patterns in space/time than it is a set of particular physical things." Jim Jubank - In The Image Of The Brain

And while simultaneously “replicating the four dimensional function of reality:”

"Space Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events. 'All masses and all velocities, and consequently all forces, are relative,' he wrote. Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to write a theory that built space and time out of events alone...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; their's was the absolute grid, within which space itself became (manifest)..." Timothy Ferris - Coming Of Age In The Milky Way

While actually functioning as “The shaping of the invisible,” and/or “Time made manifest.”

And then, from 1480 to 1880, we can simply see the “aristocracy” actually “regressing back to point time zero,” and actually admitting it as well:

“Cezanne tried to make the ultimate journey back through time – Cezanne claimed to believe in his own sensations, moreover, he said so quite categorically; 'What counts is only mass' – This is an imaginary world which Cezanne could not have seen (in reality) – It is impossible to tell – We do not know – I could not tell – I could not decide – We do not know...Cezanne created a kind of space where one technique to create depth is canceled out by another – in other words, Cezanne is the painter of the distance that seems near – This was obviously against the rule of the constant observation point (but Cezanne couldn't understand that) – Cezanne was like a lion in Nietzche's sense, and rules mattered little to him...” Yvon Taillainder

Yeah they actually admitted it, but, of course, while they: The Early Twentieth Century Modern Art Community, also, and simultaneously, adopted “Nietzche” AND “Charles Baudelaire” as the people that they – The Early Twentieth Century Fine art Art Community, were going to “build their entire foundations upon,” and, well, what did Nietzche say “Art” should be, and/or what should all “Artists” actually do?

Well Nietzche said to “lie,” and to “sin,” and to tell the world that “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” - AS they were “lying,” and that everyone – all of the so-called “artists,” should just “have a great big orgy” - AS they are “lying,” and telling the world they are “virtuous,” and that all the “artists” should simply consume vast amounts of dopamine inducing “narcotics,” AS they are engaging in their unbridled, lustful - “frenzy inducing,” “ORGY,” and that they – all the ”artists,” should “abandon” ALL “ethics and knowledge,” and that “Art should be the god of intoxication – orgies,” and that the MOST SUPREME “art” of all time, is to “Lie your face off,” see, he says so, right here (@ 12:50):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=723s

And Charles Baudelaire? Well, Charles Baudelaire made Nietsche look like a Girl Scout by comparison.

Because, Baudelaire simply came right out and said that:”ALL 'Artists' should simply, literally, 'sell your souls to Satan,' and allow yourselves to become Satan's minions, AND ACTUALLY SIMPLY DO ABSOLUTLY NOTHING, except allow yourselves to become lying, pig, self indulgent, master manipulating psychopathic con artists, and also allow yourselves to become capable of getting everything you want, by becoming master manipulating psychopathic con artists, and while also becoming rich and famous as well – by lying your psychopathic scum sucking pig face off, AND actually 'simply selling your soul to Satan,” and, yeah he ACTUALLY told them that, see he said so, right HERE (@ 26:30):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=723s

And so, that is EXACXTLY “what” Gertrude Stein DID, and – yeah, she ACTUALLY said it, right HERE (@30:00):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=723s

And then, AFTER Gertrude Stein literally “Sold her soul to Satan,” she simply began the actual “master manipulating” as well, and/or the actual “lying,” and then simply began her lying psychopathic master manipulation, while actually functioning as a “psychopathic con artist,” exactly explained right HERE (@16:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=984s

And then Gertrude Stein did EXACTLY that: She laid the foundation for effecting the single biggest, collective, master manipulating psychopathic con in the ENTIRE history of the ENTIRE world, and you want to know how we can know this ALL for a fact?

Well, you guys “testified to it,” see, right here:

“BadgerJelly: Being courteous to people does not involve calling them, and I quote, 'You lying sack of shit."

“MrMikeludo (Me): I'm a little confused, why is that NOT being courteous?”

“Eclogite: If you have to ask because you don't know then you have a problem. If you have to ask because you wish to make a point, then here are the negatives in the phrase: 1. Accusing people of lying is often discourteous. 2. Characterising them as an inanimate object is discourteous unless that object is generally valued. 3. Comparing them to fecal matter is discourteous. Why are each of these actions discourteous? Societal norms have determined that such is the case. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it is.”

See?

Alright, so you all have also “testified” to this:

“Eclogite: So what are you saying, in that first post, that we don't alreadly know?

And THAT was a “response” to THIS:

“So, essentially, this is the way pictorial cognition – and/or pictorial communication, actually works, and which is, a person draws a picture of a: BALL, and then, they show that picture to another human being, and they will have effectually communicated: 'Ball,' and/or the tangible form mass of the ball, and which is also, a: noun, and/or three dimensional tangible form mass/noun – matter. And then, after the person, and/or especially young child, learns how to draw, they can simply pictorially communicate their learned understanding of all the three dimensional tangible form nouns that surrounds us in our daily existence, such as: BALL – PLANE – BILLY – SALLY – CHAIR – SPOON – ETC., and, then, AS another human being looks at the “two dimensional pictorial communication,” which Billy has drawn, they – the human being looking at the picture, can know exactly 'what' 'it' is that 'Billy is trying to pictorially communicate,' of course.”

So then, that means that you all know THIS for a “scientific fact,” and which is the “scientific fact,” that when Pablo Picasso “produced” his “two dimensional pictorial representation” of THIS:

http://cubismsite.com/analytical-cubism/

It was/is simply the literal “pictorial equivalent” of THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_VkZq84Piw

As a matter of fact, and, guess what?

Well, they actually admit it, see (@21:35):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANqi-LuH5j8&t=1318s

And, of course, which is the “literal definition of brain death,” and/or this:

“Brain death: cessation of brain function. Criteria for conclusion that the brain has died include lack of response to all stimuli. Absence of all reflexes...” Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Journal

And/or having “less intelligence than an amoeba, and/or earthworm:”

“Our withdraw reflex, which causes us to pull away from a hot stove, involves only the spinal cord and is similar both anatomically and in behavior to that found in earthworms.” Dana Zohar

And, remember, everyone knows the way pictorial cognition functions, so, obviously, everyone knows that ANY picture, in the ENTIRE history of the world, which does not actually contain pictorial syntax, and there is ONLY the one, of Leonardo's The Annunciation, can ONLY be “translated” into THIS:

“CHAOS: 01000011 01001000 01000001 01001111 01010011
NOISE: 01001110 01001111 01001001 01010011 01000101
DISCORD: 01000100 01001001 01010011 01000011 01001111 01010010 01000100
PAIN: 01010000 01000001 01001001 01001110
SALT: 01010011 01000001 01001100 01010100
DEATH: 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000
MOVE AWAY: 01001101 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01000001 01010111 01000001 01011001.”

And, of course also, which would cause even an amoeba to “move in a direction away from it:”

“Neuroscientist Candace Pert: Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They're programmed to migrate towards or away from a chemotactic substance; they're little robots that go for sugar at all costs, and away from salt.” J. Hooper & D. Teresi

And so, of course, when the “modern art world,” actually “regressed back to point time zero,” and actually eliminated all “three dimensional space” from within their “two dimensional pictures,” and simultaneously produced their “fragmented cubist pictures,” they simply “turned all of THIS all the way up to 11:”

“CHAOS: 01000011 01001000 01000001 01001111 01010011
NOISE: 01001110 01001111 01001001 01010011 01000101
DISCORD: 01000100 01001001 01010011 01000011 01001111 01010010 01000100
PAIN: 01010000 01000001 01001001 01001110
SALT: 01010011 01000001 01001100 01010100
DEATH: 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000
MOVE AWAY: 01001101 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01000001 01010111 01000001 01011001.”

But that's NOT what they “told the world.”

You want to know what they told the world?

Well, they – the actual, admitted, lying psychopathic con artists, simply told the world they were the “most brilliant, and intelligent, and sensitive, people that have ever walked the face of the earth,” see:

“Why Picasso is the apex of art As another of the artist's works is sold for a stratospheric sum, the world is merely catching up with his originality and genius – Picasso deserves his divine status as (our) god...” Jonathan Jones

Yeah, and they told all of their victims, that they should ONLY be capable of “standing in awe in front of their worldly gods/worldly authoritative god figures,” and be capable of “understanding absolutely NOTHING” for themselves, and/or capable of employing ANY “talents” either.

And which, of course, means, that – as the “aristocracy” did actually “regress all the way back to point time zero” for themselves, they HAD NO CHOICE but to become completely, and utterly, reliant upon their “worldly gods” to supply them with access to ALL of their “consumable and effectual stimulus,” simply because they had NEVER developed any uniquely human multi dimensional synaptic capabilities, that would have enabled they to have become capable of “experiencing” any “uniquely human multi dimensional reality” for themselves, and so, of course, they had no choice but to be only capable of relying upon ALL of their worldly gods, such as the “god” Pablo Picasso, to supply them with THIS:

“At a purely chemical level (just as the injection of) heroin triggers release of dopamine, so too every experience humans find enjoyable (pleasurable), from embracing a lover to savoring chocolate (or strawberries, or honey) amounts to little more than an explosion of dopamine in the central nervous system – dopamine can be elevated by a hug, a kiss, a word of praise – by exposure to (all mindless) novelty stimulus (TO ALL mass/nouns) - Dopamine exercises extraordinary power over learning and memory (AS Pavlov's Dogs proved) – Dopamine, like most biologically important molecules, must be kept within strict bounds. Too much causes the hallucinations, and bizarre ideas, of schizophrenia - Addicts brains have responded defensively and reduced the number of sites, or receptors, to which dopamine can bind, so while addicts begin taking drugs to feel high, they end up taking them in order to not feel low...” J. Madeline Nash

Yeah, their “heroin,” and while simultaneously “Exercising exercises extraordinary power over learning and memory (AS Pavlov's Dogs proved).”

So, do you all know the way “drugs” actually cause addictions, and even death sometimes?

Well I do, because I watched my best friend slowly die for his addiction, but, of course, while doing everything humanly possible to help him.

So, the way the addiction works is like this: The person begins to consume the dopamine inducing drug, and, then, IF they don't “stop,” and only continue to consume the drug, the “effect,” of the SAME drug, begins to become LESS powerful, and LESS powerful, and LESS powerful, as – simultaneously, the “drug” MUST become MORE powerful, and MORE powerful, and MORE powerful, simply to enable the “victim” to “breathe,” and which is exactly why the “addict” behaves like this:

“Dopamine is like a sledgehammer – it creates a serious behavioral disorder – Addicts, in fact, display many of the symptoms shown by patients who have suffered strokes or injuries to their prefrontal cortices (cerebral cortices) Damage to this region, destroys the emotional compass that they patients should know are unacceptable..”

Yeah, they begin to behave like “psychopaths.”

So, beings we all know exactly how “pictorial cognition works,” we can all acknowledge that when Pablo Picasso produced his “two dimensional pictorial discord,” he was ONLY behaving EXACTLY like this:

“Adolf Hitler: Fear Of Obscurity – If people had attacked us in those days, I would have been happy. For the oppressive thing was neither the one nor the other, it was the complete lack of attention we found in those days from which I suffered most – An agitator, who demonstrates the ability to transmit an idea to the broad masses must always be a psychologist, even if he were only a demagogue – For leading means, being able to move masses..” Mein Kampf

Yeah, like a “discord producing provocateur,” just like Adolf Hitler – Who could NOT experience any “harmony:”

“When He (Adolf) asked, she (his mother) bought him a piano. He studied just a few months, actual playing of the piano did not interest mother or son...” Michael Nelkin

So, as the victims of the con simply became addicted to the "heroin” that they were consuming, the effects – of course, were simply becoming exponentially worsened with each passing generation, and as they started with the “low level discord of Picasso,” and began their degenerated addiction all through the twentieth century.

So, as each succeeding generation became more, and more, and more effected, and – simultaneously, more, and more, and more addicted, all of the relative phenomena also had to become more, and more, and more exponentially “turned up,” as – simultaneously, the “addicts” became LESS sensitive, and LESS sensitive, and LESS sensitive, to MORE, and MORE, and MORE literally defined purely “discordant stimulus,” and/or this:

“CHAOS: 01000011 01001000 01000001 01001111 01010011
NOISE: 01001110 01001111 01001001 01010011 01000101
DISCORD: 01000100 01001001 01010011 01000011 01001111 01010010 01000100
PAIN: 01010000 01000001 01001001 01001110
SALT: 01010011 01000001 01001100 01010100
DEATH: 01000100 01000101 01000001 01010100 01001000
MOVE AWAY: 01001101 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01000001 01010111 01000001 01011001.”

And/or purely “OFFENSIVE” stimulus.

And which is EXACTLY why, they did THIS:

“The Holy Virgin Mary is a painting created by Chris Ofili in 1996. It was one of the works included in the Sensation - The subject of the work, and its execution, caused considerable controversy in New York, with Rudolph Giuliani – then Mayor of New York City – describing Ofili's work as 'sick.' In 1998, Ofili was the first black artist to be awarded the Turner Prize. The painting was sold for £2.9 million ($4.6 million) in June 2015 - On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high and 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including elephant dung (and) pornographic images...” Wikipedia

And this:

“Piss Christ - depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's 'Awards in the Visual Arts,' which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects...”

And became “pure evil.”

Remember, you guys actually said so:

“BadgerJelly: Being courteous to people does not involve calling them, and I quote, 'You lying sack of shit."

“Eclogite: If you have to ask because you don't know then you have a problem. If you have to ask because you wish to make a point, then here are the negatives in the phrase: 1. Accusing people of lying is often discourteous. 2. Characterising them as an inanimate object is discourteous unless that object is generally valued. 3. Comparing them to fecal matter is discourteous. Why are each of these actions discourteous? Societal norms have determined that such is the case. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it is.”

You see?

[MrMikeludo]

Side note: I did read all of the “rules and guidelines” BEFORE I ever started posting here, I always do, and I did read this:

“Our goal is to foster a friendly environment in which ideas can be freely exchanged and discussed, where questions can be asked and answered. If you are challenging established theories or schools of thought, expect to have your ideas challenged and be prepared to defend them. To this end, certain rules and guidelines have been established to provide for a conducive atmosphere of intelligent discourse..”

“Users should be ready to support their claims - it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions (and) unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse. Some discussions will proceed more casually. However, more rigorous discussions are encouraged - When you assert a position on something, you must be prepared to demonstrate basic scholarship behind that position....”

And that is EXACTLY what I am doing, and, also, no where did I read any restriction on “length of post,” so, obviously, I am following the letter of the law.

In addition, this is a “major” “challenging of established theory,” and so, obviously, it is going to require a “major contribution,” in addition also, this is “my proposed challenging,” of the “established principle,” and, also, my thread, and so, well, I am NOT “infiltrating” any other contributor's thread with my contribution.

So, also, IF someone wants to read my post, so be it, if they do not, so be it also – I am not violating any of the “posted rules” in this thread.

And so, if you want to ban me from this forum, so be it.

[BadgerJelly]

Mik -

You're marching ahead too quickly for me. You barely give a chance for comments. Slow it down please.

To refer to the whole Hulk/Andersson thing, you make a very elaborate and seemingly purposeless expression of something we all know. Why not just say the brain maps reality and frames it as best it can so we can navigate "through" reality?

After this there is an issue with how these very words work in the habit to frame what we call "understanding". Menaing understanding and meaning are possible only with language. That is not to say a rat doesn't "understand" fear or hunger, only that it doesn't possess anything equalivalent to "human language", the language we are using now to feel out its others thoughts across the globe.

As to the youtube vid I posted there is no "correct" answer because it is a question of subjective experience. You see what you see regardless of your understanding of the illusion or not. It is neither "wrong" or "right" to be a genius or "crazy" (as the vid puts it). To put it another way if you taste a strawberry and it is delicious and if I taste it and find it disgusting then neither experience is anything but an experience. What is felt is felt. If humans had an equal proportion and distribution of RGB receptors in the retina the sky would appear not as blue but as being purple. So what is true? To ask what is true is a false question. Both experiences are. The extent of illusion is determined by common experiences and physical interactions. Group hallucinations are similar to language in a way. When I say "red" we all buy into the illusion of universal meaning when the experience of red is essentially an individual one. Saying "red" doesn't make me imagine red, although it will obviously active neurons related to the menaing of this word with other words and to a degree with sensation too (such as if you hear the word "THEM" and have been tortured in the past where they instilled a certain fear of this word you will be "triggered".

We see this kind of thing exploited in language and politics to disturbing effects. Dehumanising people, and disassociating action from self, killing humans like "rats" because you;ve been induced to think of them as lesser than a rat (I actually like rats.)

“Mathematics is the only subject that can provide complete and utter universal truths, whereas no other subject can.”

Provide the proof. No has to date. Godel pretty much blew this assumption out of the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Okay, I will assume you are correct. How can we "talk" about it? Can we "talk" about it? Are we talking about a mathematical key that will allow us to literally read this "translation"? How has he encoded this? How can we "read" it? Can we "read" it? It is merely hedonism because the idea of all this sweetness and pleasure sounds like a popes orgy to me.

I would go further and ask what impact the whole occult movement had on Leonardo too. This is a subject I have a reasonable understanding of and I understand the in-fighting among alchemists of the era and the impact imposed by the Church too to quash (knowingly or not) a whole area of psychological investigation. Don't want to get all Jungian on you but this may very well be where we're heading?

I can see the beginnings of what you're saying beginning to surface. It is near impossible to express the complexity of this matter or to fully understand it. We are talking about the machinations of the human mind here in relation to affect/effect of ideas about "inner"/"outer" and "heaven"/"hell" dichotomy, which are in themselves the guiding hand that paints tne map of reality.

I may very well start sounding more obtuse than you soon so reel it in if you can and don't feel the need to explain the obvious just state it. We know we are conditioned by society and have habits and have a whoel array of impulses and reactions, automated systems and cybernetic systems. Our "control" is necessarily limited as is our experience.

[MrMikeludo]

BadgerJelly:

“To refer to the whole Hulk/Anderson thing, you make a very elaborate and seemingly purposeless expression of something we all know.”

No, “we” do NOT all “know” it, by YOUR own testimony BadgerJelly.

And because too if we all knew it Picasso simply would not exist today, and neither would Jackson Pollock, and neither would Marcel Duchamp, and neither would, well, ANY of this:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation stone of the modern and postmodern concept of the 'fineness' of fine art. Without it the ability of the fine art institution to create its canon of 'great artists' and the capacity of the art market to sell faeces and urinals as precious objects would collapse...By the time of Picasso the romantic myth of genius became tool whereby dealers could 'explain' the strangeness of creative products such as Cubism. As soon as it came of age, in the early 20th century the avant-garde was commodified. The rise of the avant garde is inextricably intertwined with the maturation of the commercial gallery system: one cannot survive without the other. Only the mystique of genius casts a veil over the underlying commodity status...” artintelligence – Graham Coulter-Smith

And I don't mean it wouldn't exist as we know it, but it simply would not exist.

Because NONE of ANY of it has ANY “intrinsic ARTISTIC value,” as a matter of FACT.

And, certainly no human being on the face of this Earth would EVER believe that a “can of feces” has an intrinsic value of “Three hundred thousand dollars,” and/or a “Dirty bed” has an intrinsic value of “Three million dollars,” and/or THIS:

https://alexmoorephoto.wordpress.com/tag/jeff-koons/

Is the work of “One of the greatest artists in the history of the world,” either, and/or ANY of it, including THIS:

“Why Picasso is the apex of art As another of the artist's works is sold for a stratospheric sum, the world is merely catching up with his originality and genius – Picasso deserves his divine status as (our) god...” Jonathan Jones

And/or THIS:

“Piss Christ - depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's 'Awards in the Visual Arts,' which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects...”

And by your own testimony, remember?

Alright, so, what happened?

Well, they simply turned “Art,” into THIS:

“Pavlovian Conditioning - Pavlov discovered that any object or event which the dogs learnt to associate with food (such as the lab assistant) would trigger a response, so he realized that he had made an important scientific discovery - Pavlov knew that somehow, the dogs in his lab had learned to associate food with his lab assistant. This must have been learned, because at one point the dogs did not do it, and there came a point where they started, so their behavior had changed. A change in behavior of this type must be the result of learning - What had happened was that the neutral stimulus (the lab assistant) had become associated with an unconditioned stimulus (food) - In his experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral stimulus. Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on its own. As you might expect, the bell on its own now caused an increase in salivation. So the dog had learned an association between the bell and the food and a new behavior had been learnt. Because this response was learned (or conditioned), it is called a conditioned response. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus...” Saul McLeod – Simply Psychology

Yeah, they: the “Art world,” LITERALLY “conditioned” all of their, so-called, “patrons,” just like Pavlov's dogs were “conditioned by the bell.”

So, what the “Modern Art World” - beginning with Picasso, at the beginning of the twentieth century, simply did was LITERALLY “condition” their “patrons” in a manner EXACTLY analogous to Pavlov's dogs, and, again – LITERALLY.

So, all the, so-called, Fine Art World did, beginning with Picasso, and/or THIS:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation stone of the modern and postmodern concept of the 'fineness' of fine art. Without it the ability of the fine art institution to create its canon of 'great artists' and the capacity of the art market to sell faeces and urinals as precious objects would collapse...By the time of Picasso the romantic myth of genius became tool whereby dealers could 'explain' the strangeness of creative products such as Cubism. As soon as it came of age, in the early 20th century the avant-garde was commodified...” artintelligence – Graham Coulter-Smith

Was, instead of “ringing a bell,” and “throwing a piece of meat,” at their “conditioned dogs,” well, instead, they simply said the word:”GENIUS,” and – THEN, instead of “throwing a piece of meat at them,” they did THIS:

“Dopamine can be elevated by a hug, a kiss, a word of praise – as well as through (allowed) exposure to any (newly perceived) novel stimulus...By money, and worldly power, by sex, drugs, and alcohol, and by ANY self-indulgence – By any grandiose environment, by worldly possessions – by cars, and planes, and diamonds, and ALL THREE DIMENSIONAL THINGS, and/or nouns – and especially, ALL 'non-things' as well, such as by allowing yourself to 'provoke a reaction,' by CREATING DISCORD, and thereby allowing yourself to 'draw attention' towards yourself, and, thereby also, becoming a Nietzchean 'Fine Art Artist' (and a member of the Church of The Big O, as well), while also 'lying' and telling the world you are a 'genius'...”

They gave them – their “Patrons” - OR, more exactly, and “scientifically,” their “victims of the con,” allowed exposure to “DOPAMINE,” and/or, they simply did THIS:

http://saucypictures.com/pin/a-room-ful ... ked-girls/

Yeah, you 'see' how there's a “blank canvas,” at the back of that "room filled with naked woman,” well, that is EXACTLY what they did, see:

https://alexmoorephoto.wordpress.com/tag/jeff-koons/

Yeah, that's “Jeff Koons,” this:

“Jeff Koons: A Genius from Day One - THE DAILY PIC: Our critic feels his simplest found objects have amazing depths.” - artnet News

Yeah, they LITERALLY conditioned their “VICTIMS” just like “Pavlov's Dogs,” by simply showing them, the “VICTIMS,” some “thing” - LITERALLY, “ANY” “THING,” and saying:”IF YOU GIVE US YOUR MONEY (and your LITERAL soul) YOU CAN TELL THE WORLD YOU ARE A GENIUS, and receive a 'tiny' dose of DOPAMINE to consume for yourself, and join the Church Of The Big O, as well.”

Yeah, that's how they did it, and it all began with Picasso, see, by their own admission:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation stone of the modern and postmodern concept of the 'fineness' of fine art. Without it the ability of the fine art institution to create its canon of 'great artists' and the capacity of the art market to sell faeces and urinals as precious objects would collapse...By the time of Picasso the romantic myth of genius became tool whereby dealers could 'explain' the strangeness of creative products such as Cubism. As soon as it came of age, in the early 20th century the avant-garde was commodified...” artintelligence – Graham Coulter-Smith

Which was as they: “The Fine Art World,” began ALL of their, self admitted, lying, and conning, and/or this:

“Definitions of a con artist; A swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim; A person who defrauds or swindles others after first gaining their trust; A person adept at lying, cajolery, or glib self-serving talk; They are experts at gaining the confidence of others; They have creative imagination and discernment and are extremely smart; They are charming and have persuasive powers; They are smooth operators, shrewd intimidators, manipulators and actors par excellence; They thrive on the simple fact that people tend to believe only what they want to believe; They live in self-denial and renouncement; When you confront them by pointing out their lies and dishonest deeds, they will retreat and pretend it is beyond their dignity to be in a state of defence. They will rather classify you as ‘neurotic’, ‘paranoid'..."

And this, as well:

“Lying, deceiving, and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths. With their powers of imagination in gear and focused on themselves, psychopaths appear amazingly unfazed by the possibility, or even the certainty, of being found out. When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom perplexed or embarrassed, they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be consistent with the lie...The psychopath is completely egocentric, valuing others only for their enhancement of their own pleasure or status. Many psychopaths love to be admired and bask in the adulation of others. Not only do they covet power, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others...” Dr. Robert Hare

So, that's when, and how, the ENTIRE “biggest con in the history of the world” began, and, by your: You all, admission, right?

As BadgerJelly, and Eclogite, said this:

BadgerJelly: Being courteous to people does not involve calling them, and I quote, 'You lying sack of shit."

“MrMikeludo (Me): I'm a little confused, why is that NOT being courteous?”

“Eclogite: If you have to ask because you don't know then you have a problem. If you have to ask because you wish to make a point, then here are the negatives in the phrase: 1. Accusing people of lying is often discourteous. 2. Characterising them as an inanimate object is discourteous unless that object is generally valued. 3. Comparing them to fecal matter is discourteous. Why are each of these actions discourteous? Societal norms have determined that such is the case. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it is.

And Braininvat, said this:

“And voting for a con artist who bilked Trump U. students out of millions of dollars is the way to go about that worthy goal - Your emotional kneejerk response to critics of Trump shows a woeful unawareness of what he and his minions are doing, of his crooked and shameful past, and his corrupt and mendacious tactics in trying to enrich and empower himself – dishonest, crooked, emotionally immature, self-contradicting, and dumber than a speed-bump. Our constitution specifically calls for a free press to act as a monitor and watchdog on government - For me, this doesn't rest on fictions, but on how we humans are hardwired. I think many of us don't realize, because we are so fortunate to live in modern democracies with the rule of law, how very much worse other systems focused on personal power and domination are for humans, in ways that are objectively measurable. And I think this cultural forgetfulness of darker times is precisely how chest-pounding feces-hurling apes like Trump can get elected...” Braininvat

So, we can know, for a fact, and by “your” literal “testimony,” that they: The so-called Fine Art World, beginning with Picasso, and 'Modern art,” effected the single biggest, and single most effectual, and single most evil, con, in the entire history of the world.

And, again, while beginning with Picasso, and the “Art World,” turning their “victims” into the literal equivalent of “Pavlov's Dogs,” and/or Sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZ2WIAX0QE

And, again, while literally, simply, beginning with Picasso, and working all the way “down” to, this:

“The Holy Virgin Mary is a painting created by Chris Ofili in 1996. It was one of the works included in the Sensation - The subject of the work, and its execution, caused considerable controversy in New York, with Rudolph Giuliani – then Mayor of New York City – describing Ofili's work as 'sick.' In 1998, Ofili was the first black artist to be awarded the Turner Prize. The painting was sold for £2.9 million ($4.6 million) in June 2015 - On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high and 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including elephant dung (and) pornographic images...” Wikipedia

And this, as well:

“Piss Christ - depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's 'Awards in the Visual Arts,' which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects...”

And, again, THIS:

https://alexmoorephoto.wordpress.com/tag/jeff-koons/

And, all along, by simply “using” the “trigger,” of “Genius:”

“Watch Scarlett Johansson Explain Why Jeff Koons Is an Artistic Genius - The eight-minute video traces Koons's rise and includes interviews from art-world heavyweights:

https://alexmoorephoto.wordpress.com/tag/jeff-koons/

Yeah, they did all that.

So, would anyone like to guess as to “exactly” how, scientifically – neurophysilogically, they were able to do all of that?

Here's a clue:

“There are similarities between EEG's – recorded brain waves, of adult psychopaths and those of children, (while displaying symptoms) including egocentricity, impulsivity, selfishness, and unwillingness to delay gratification. To some investigators, this suggests little more than a developmental delay. Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan, for example, has argued that behind (the psychopath's) 'Mask of sanity' lies not insanity but a young child of nine or ten...Psychopaths are easily bored and have an ongoing need for excitement...”

How, exactly, they – the (so-called) Fine Art World, were actually able to steal the “collective consciousness of mankind,” and, almost, get away with it as well?

[Eclogite]

So, we can know, for a fact, and by “your” literal “testimony,” that they: The so-called Fine Art World, beginning with Picasso, and 'Modern art,” effected the single biggest, and single most effectual, and single most evil, con, in the entire history of the world.

Really? More evil than the con Hitler perpetrated on the German people? Or, taking it down several notches, more evil than the con regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction several Western leaders perpetrated on their citizens. To the best of my knowledge the Fine Art con, if it is indeed a con, has not killed many thousand people. Or do you place offended artistic sensibilities above the lives of distant people?

[MrMikeludo]

Eclogite:

So, we can know, for a fact, and by “your” literal “testimony,” that they: The so-called Fine Art World, beginning with Picasso, and 'Modern art,” effected the single biggest, and single most effectual, and single most evil, con, in the entire history of the world.

Really? More evil than the con Hitler perpetrated on the German people? Or, taking it down several notches, more evil than the con regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction several Western leaders perpetrated on their citizens. To the best of my knowledge the Fine Art con, if it is indeed a con, has not killed many thousand people. Or do you place offended artistic sensibilities above the lives of distant people?

YES, MORE "evil," and more "deadly" as well, and, as a matter of fact, it is a "scientific fact," as well.

Explanation coming.

[Eclogite]

Eclogite:

So, we can know, for a fact, and by “your” literal “testimony,” that they: The so-called Fine Art World, beginning with Picasso, and 'Modern art,” effected the single biggest, and single most effectual, and single most evil, con, in the entire history of the world.

Really? More evil than the con Hitler perpetrated on the German people? Or, taking it down several notches, more evil than the con regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction several Western leaders perpetrated on their citizens. To the best of my knowledge the Fine Art con, if it is indeed a con, has not killed many thousand people. Or do you place offended artistic sensibilities above the lives of distant people?

YES, MORE "evil," and more "deadly" as well, and, as a matter of fact, it is a "scientific fact," as well.

Explanation coming.

I'm sorry officer, I had no option but to shoot him with my revolver. He was coming at me with a Picasso lithograph. And it was already out of its frame!

[MrMikeludo]

Eclogite:

"I'm sorry officer, I had no option but to shoot him with my revolver. He was coming at me with a Picasso lithograph. And it was already out of its frame!"

Hey that's funny, I liked that:)

But I'm talking about "evil," you know, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaiLcwHXB4

And/or, the "thing" that would actually cause someone to "come at someone with a Picasso lithograph," and/or to actually "shoot" someone, as well, and/or allow "them" to "have a job.";)

[BadgerJelly]

Mik -

You're touching on some psychological issue here I find interesting. You're also guilty of what you're riling against consciously or not by the way you're spattering across the threads you post with a façade of rationally that may, or may not, possess a rational point.

You've kept me thoroughly entertained though and I look forward to seeing your ideas and thoughts crystalise (or attempt too.) You remind me of how I thought I used to come across to people online when trying to express something that was, and still is, a deeply rooted subjective "experience".

In a sense are you saying that a large section of "the art world" has flipped, meaning where there was once meaning and structure people tear it down, and where there is obscurity and chaos people dig for and create a façade of meaning?

I am with you on "art" not being soley about pulling meanings willy-nilly from unconscious manifestations. For me there needs to be a little more than merely "raw" emotional expression. For me there has to be some form of structure and purpose, even if the base manifestation was an unconscious block it may very well still be moulded into an actually piece of art.

[MrMikeludo]

Mik -

You're touching on some psychological issue here I find interesting. You're also guilty of what you're riling against consciously or not by the way you're spattering across the threads you post with a façade of rationally that may, or may not, possess a rational point.

You've kept me thoroughly entertained though and I look forward to seeing your ideas and thoughts crystalise (or attempt too.) You remind me of how I thought I used to come across to people online when trying to express something that was, and still is, a deeply rooted subjective "experience".

In a sense are you saying that a large section of "the art world" has flipped, meaning where there was once meaning and structure people tear it down, and where there is obscurity and chaos people dig for and create a façade of meaning?

I am with you on "art" not being soley about pulling meanings willy-nilly from unconscious manifestations. For me there needs to be a little more than merely "raw" emotional expression. For me there has to be some form of structure and purpose, even if the base manifestation was an unconscious block it may very well still be moulded into an actually piece of art.

Yes BadgerJelly, "Flipped Wilson:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ktADH6J-g

They don't care, whatever it is, because they "got there's."

[BadgerJelly]

Here is something I posted years ago.

Even though now I feel I am better equipped to explain what I meant if I tried now it would be too long for people to take seriously and would be hit and miss.

Anyway, thought it may interest in part because you'll likely be familiar with the knee-jerk reaction people make when you mention something like "fairies" and people actually think you mean "fairies" not some archetypal representation manifest across continents, cultures and millennia. I guess I did myself no favours by using parenthesis so much and mentioning alchemy and magick.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25584

I think you'll see from the replies and my attempts to engage I can understand you may feel frustrated or simply at a loss as how to express what you wish to express.

My last post on that thread looks a little like one of yours! haha!