Is sexuality nature or nurture?

Reason can not argue that sexuality is entirely one or the other, then it’s the passion that responds. Domination of one over the other? It’s like trying to measure position and velocity of a particle simultaneously. The prism of our intentions allows us to visualize only one of the two. If queer theory led out of a Manichaeism on gender, it remains that the sexualization of the baby at birth is entirely innate and will tattoo the succession of exchanges with the environment thereafter. The reality of development is not “nature or nurture” but nature then nurture. Personality is an integral function of the nature modified by the nurture; each point from 0 to 100 years takes an unpredictable value, because the nurture comprises a large number of unknowns. An entanglement making calculation of dominance impossible, and that makes our diversity.

Queer theory is weakened by a false premise: that culture would be independent of nature. In evolutionary terms, the culture is itself a function. It is the answer that human beings brought to relational difficulties between their nature and the environment. It is not a creation ex nihilo. Thus queer theory is a kind of activism rather than a scientific thesis. And it is very useful as well, as the culture evolves as a result of such militancy, and that male domination was deadly enough so that we give a chance to women (only thing that may bother in the traditional feminism: it encourages a mimicry of the female to the male rather than emancipation, but it is another controversy).

Understanding more precisely the interactions between nature and culture cannot come from accumulation of gender surveys. We need a structural model of personality able to explain sexual differentiation. To see how one I propose behaves, let ask another interesting question: “Why the impression of watching an explosion of sexual genders? Why teenagers are more reluctant to self determine? ”

I will answer after you…

How did you get started with understanding philosophy, in general?

The space of our decisions is a kind of chaotic vortex where mix our instinctive aspirations, intrinsic, and suggestions of the social, extrinsic. A meeting between invention and mimicry. Thus separate two different contexts in which we start a philosophical path:

The philosophy may come to you without it was necessary, because you have bathed in it since the dawn of your education. Rather than a useful tool to control the world, philosophy was itself one of the mysteries of the world that must be mastered.

Other people learned alternative tools sufficiently developed to perfectly control their environment. Scientific education. More individualistic claim too. One invents a destiny more personal and proprietary with futuristic projections of science than with the catalog of thinkings of the past. The fundamental laws of matter belong to nobody. Whereas philosophy, especially its academic and educational aspect, is a line of authoritarian voices. Many teenagers do not already support the parents. If we are to listen to more instructions from all those old drivellers!

Nevertheless these people have plenty of time later to come to philosophy, either because their sparkling wit eventually grew tired of scientific rigor, coated with a certain conformity, either because they have encountered questions that science could not answer. Such as serious illness or death of a loved one leads to: “What is the meaning of existence? “. Or making a journey to experience the poor living conditions imposed: “What are the justifications of inequalities? “. Or divorce suddenly interested in “How the mind does it work and why consciences differ? « .

Personally most major philosophy texts have always given me the impression to make me violate the spirit. Pop up the desire to put a condom on my head. The first I found different and that attracted me to the philosophy is « La gaya scienza » of Nietzsche. A demonstration of inventiveness. Small beautiful beads, which far from hem the world in a stifling paradigm show in its diversity. An incentive to do the same, and permanently get rid of all boredom.

Neuroscience: What kind and amount of information can be stored in a single neuron?

Two important additions to the excellent example of Joyce Schenkein about vision:

1) The principle of pyramidal and layered organization is available to all our micro-conceptual assemblages from elementary neural biology to conscious levels, solve the “hard problem of consciousness”. Consciousness is in fact based on a very small number of neurons integrators interconnecting specialized areas themselves self-organized in a layered structure. For example the “Jennifer Aniston neuron” is connected to more than a pure visual integration. It is connected to groups memorizing events and assessing the character, fame, morality, etc … to make, using a single neuron, a much more elaborate overall picture than a simple photography.

2) The pyramidal organization is bi-directional. This is an essential point. Neurons integrators control back underlying levels. Extremely dynamic and self-healing process, which ensures the stability of the whole. The information of a level is “expected” by the following. And if it is no longer available (neurological accident), it is rebuilt by other groups of neurons. This explains the high plasticity of the brain.

This organization of the mind is explained in detail in a book, « Stratium”, not translated into English, but resumed in another, “Diversium”, translated. Other extracts in my answers.

If philosophy is the search for answers, then what is art?

Art is very similar to philosophy and takes importance to the same minds, although it addresses different contents of consciousness. The two disciplines are more specifically the search of personal answers. Less a quest than a construction. Strengthen the system coherence around the world observed by our individual telescope. Either there is already a model that we can seize: we adhere to a specific philosophy, an artistic lineage. Either no model suits us and we create our own fashion. Explanation of the diversity of these two disciplines, as well art as philosophy. All their branches try to conquer the collectivity and none completely succeed, creating a patchwork of baronies while core science look like a planetary UN.

The art includes two topics: the artistic activity, identity tool, engraving contours of his personality. And the art object, symbol, icon, survival, myth, social organization element.

Art is a means and a landmark. The first is individual; the second collective. The first is an interaction, the second anchor. It is nice but wrong to say that an artwork is alive. It lives only by individuals that gravitate around and mutate. A mountain is alive only by mountaineers and villagers clinging to its slopes. The collective is a vast low moving mass; its parts are the agitation.

We were talking about different contents of consciousness. In the conscious space flit integrative thoughts, that is to say, they are the merging of various mental functions, each with a more or less strong celebrity, connected closely or not to neurological pleasure highways. Crafts, aesthetic analysis, pure logic conceptualization, anticipation of the self and of the work performed, mimicry … this mess of approximate words actually describes a layered pyramid of self-organizing concepts ensuring the stability of our personalities. The structure of each is unique and instinctive impulses take original paths to become sublimations. Philosophy is conceptual apotheosis and art is sensory apotheosis, of a self finally cleared of discontinuities. These activities, to repeat, are basically individualistic.

While the artwork escapes its creator. Any viewer can appropriate representation. Becomes link. Part of a level of organization superior to the individual: group, ethnicity, nation, ideal, universal … if its claims go this far.

The interaction / opposition between unity and collective founded an ambitious theory of everything called « Diversium », which presents the human spirit surrounded by its material reality and its society as a self-organized pyramid, producing an abundant diversity. The art plays a role both in terms of individual identity and in organization of social strata above the individual, known Diversium summit, which hardware support currently remains our thin neurological systems interconnected… and the remarkable objects they produce.

Is there truth to the assertion that our brains process digital reading differently than content we read on paper?

Inspired by: your paper brain and your brain Kindle are not the same thing – would love to hear some scientific perspectives on this.

The brain processes each different media in a specific way. It is not linked only to the media itself but to the context associated with it. An advertisement, an artwork, a comic, a blog, burst to our senses in different awareness posture. Magazine contains more parasitic information than a book, and the picture setting example in the link you mention is poorly chosen: the traveler with a tablet is certainly better focus on its subject than its neighbor diving in a newspaper.

The media influences the way the information is received. It is not exactly a change in cerebral process but of how various components of this process are associated. The conclusions of the article you cite are very biased. Among components of the depth of attention to reading, interest in the subject will always obliterate the importance of support.

Better point of interest: to confirm that the brain establishes a two-way relationship with its “suppliers” of information. The media modulate its way of analyzing the data as much as the mind chooses the media. This is true of any tool: a chisel frequently used model part of the brain that directs it. The tool acquires a real presence in the mental space. It participates in a more or less marked way to the genesis of intentions. Not necessarily beneficial mode. Vision of a cigarette activate immediately its mental representation and, unless other elements come in the attention, it lights itself!

Important: to choose its media in relation to our personal projects and types of information that we want to integrate our mental space. Only digital universe is able to help us store the ever increasing amounts of data that we are offered. At the risk of identity dispersion? May become a data sponge. Find oneself, or find again, becomes affecting a personal identity to his media, and to the contexts in which they are used. There is no substitute, in this role, to a good library.

Are people able to build only the thoughts to which they already have the words?

Context: for example languages that have no words for colors can even begin to understand the concept of the theory of colors, primary and secondary, etc.

Thus posed, question induces a necessarily negative response. Very common situation that Miss words adapted to translate his thoughts. Bright source of frustration for a teenager. If I form an original concept in my mind, imperfectly translated by the words of the languages that I know (french, English, mathematics, music, design…) I seek immediately a new Word that would suit him. The downside is that thus I me isolated, since the words are also used to Exchange and I was originally only to know the meaning. Spread, to an acute mind, much influence… and claim. For example I have never managed to impose SBM = Sloth Based Medicine, based on lazy, yet the perfect antonym of EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) 🙂

Then to stay sociable we usually replace a perfectly clear thought/concept in our mind with a more or less convoluted speech, in the absence of Word able to summarize it. The more scholars pick in foreign languages and dramatically shorten their words… to the point sometimes of being more understandable as their namesakes.

The words thus arise new conceptual organizations that aren't yet words. You had the idea of associating different ingredients to create a unique gourmet recipe? Looking for a specific name for this succulent dish!

A more difficult question is: "that brings the word to thinking what it means? ''

A thought is the integration of a conceptual pyramid. Its elements, sensory, biographical, emotional, ethical, logical… are themselves removable in micro-concepts, and so on. The red color at the base is a neurological signal emitted by a particular cone. The concept and the Word will appear when they acquire a sufficient celebrity in mental functioning. It is a utility process. The word, or any other language element, strengthens and stabilizes the concept of "red." More integration of 'red' concerns from multiple areas, the more it becomes a featured landmark. The word, tool of communication of the concept, has on him an effect of strengthening and delimitation. It improves the structure of mental functioning, allows the construction of new levels of self-organization.

The word is, altogether, both the result of a thought in need for translation, and the base on which to build a higher thought.

How exactly do we think ? What is a ‘thought’ in the first place ?

I am fearful that this will be an unanswerable question.
I want to know what ‘thought’ is, and HOW we think. I want this answered not only in neuroscientific terms, but also in quantum terms. How does change at a subatomic level cause a thought to be generated?

This is a answerable question, unless you are looking to revive the old quarrel of dualism of thought, what one may suspect with your requirement to see a quantum origin.

The thought is it entirely superimposed on the activity of neurons that form, or is it a non-biological aspect, or even non-material?

This second hypothesis survives thanks to blur still surrounding the consciousness phenomenon, but we do not really need it, and there is no demonstration that such aspect can exist. The quantum theory of consciousness (and thoughts that occupy) has been proposed in two different forms:

1) The theory of Penrose-Hameroff: physicist associated with an anesthesiologist wanted to see directly the consciousness as a quantum phenomenon. Theory based in part on mathematical and physical premises whose falsehood has been demonstrated by other physicists. Intuitively we wonder what could there be in common between conformism of particulate interactions, admittedly complex but perfectly calculable with the standard model, and something as unpredictable as thought. Nothing to do with quantum uncertainty: thought is a manifestation of the complexity of mental self-organization. If quantum phenomena were sufficient to declare a conscience, should we not question our doormat how it saw the fact of being trampled to each of our passages?

2) A second approach to quantum consciousness, more active today, has less to do with magical thinking: it is a theory which sees the construction of thought near probabilistic phenomenon of quantum uncertainty. Here it is not taking consciousness as a quantum phenomenon directly, but use the equations of the quantum level to model how our consciousness thoughts appear from the multitude of possible combinations of micro-concepts within them.

This approach is original but is based on a simplistic analogy: the neurons are not particles and no mathematical model can predict our conscious thoughts. The assumption is a denial of richness of criteria, layered on a multitude of successive paradigms, leading us to take on the fly, a decision rather than another. Quantum approach can be an acceptable approximation for simple, relatively standardized functions such as sensory integration, but has no chance to establish a personality map. Other arguments are detailed in the book “Diversium” which explains the formation of thoughts with current knowledge.

“One” thought can never be considered in isolation. Their sequence is a kind of fire-o’browsing the network of the highest integrators neurons in the hierarchy of self-organized mind, each representing a complex and branched concept, each atop a multistage processing structure items relating thereto.

Remove one of these neurons: consciousness is still present, but one of the specialized concepts that occupy it will appear no more, without there being anything in mind to get account, since it is already in the highest control level.

Remove neurons in the lower floors, and there it takes a lot more of them, as in Alzheimer’s, so that the damage becomes obvious: the concepts do not manage to form correctly anymore, to chain consistency. Large voids are filled with fallacies. Mental pyramid is ready to collapse.

How to escape from Gödel’s incompleteness theorem

The Diversium is a way to escape to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Recall in a few words that this monumental demonstration of Gödel certifies that any mathematical system contains its own limitations, leading to the discouraging conclusion for a researcher that human investigations about the universe are bounded. In the Diversium, nothing like: each system consistency has a privileged level of existence, and its finitude is visible to this level. Judicious finitude, necessary even, otherwise the levels would be infinite. The postulates evolve from one level to another, giving rise to more diverse and complex mathematics. On the level of human consciousness they are currently inoperative, as involving too many indeterminate algorithms, with changes in postulates marking each intermediate level between matter and mind.

Publication of "Diversium", true theory of Everything (not reduced to the fundamental physics of reality)

Do we have nowadays a serious Theory of Everything?

Many candidates, each exploring a specialized facet of the existing… no one connects everything. They fall into four broad categories: mystics, scientists, humanists, epistemological. How unify these systems of consistency, when each presents itself as fundamental discipline of thought? Mysticism superbly ignores scientific findings; science seeks in the « theory of everything » unification of the physical world that reduces man to a bunch of elementary particles; humanism instead focuses exclusively contents of consciousness, without worrying about their provenance; Finally epistemologists lack fundamental knowledge advanced enough to lecture to scientists.

David Chalmers says that in the first instance, a true theory of everything can not be based only on physical laws, should include the relationship between physical processes and conscious experience. No possibility of building such a theory without understanding already, how works consciousness.

This requirement is the basis of the book « Diversium, a theory of Ever and Everything ». The challenge: to respect the scientific data, including our tool to develop a conceptual space: mind, finally not evacuate but connect theological and philosophical suggestions. The strength of our approach is its interdisciplinarity. Each specialist can find new answers because it is, above all, innovative way of thinking.

The heart of the book unfolds as follows:

-Theorization of human mind function, in agreement with the latest neuroscience research: principle of self-organized pyramid whose levels produce increasingly complex concepts (similar to stratified organizational laws), from biology to mental, reacting to reasoning.

-Extension of stratification principle to the organization of successive levels of matter (part of the pyramid ranging from elementary particles to our neurological system) as well as the social coordination (part above our individual minds which are the support).

All disciplines are so concerned by this theory, whose main contribution is to escape locking them in a pre-established framework. Rather it protects the independence of their respective paradigms. The Diversium is a machine to diversify. The additional level of organization that we can add to our thinking, and to society as well, occurs by considering all alternatives and putting them in conflict.

It is therefore not an attempt to bury these conflicts under an hegemonic theory but almost to exalt, in order to achieve the best outcome, that can be as well harmonization, dualism, of fame for a solution clearly superior to others, colonizing the level of considered organization.

This new thinking encourages to identify the Diversium level where anchors the paradigm you want to use. A paradigm is a descriptive language of the laws of organization of a specific plan. Its power may extend to adjacent levels but is exhausted by the addition of independences formed by these layers. E.g. standard model reigns on quantum particles, requires corrections to adapt to the macroscopic reality, and does not explain our human behavior, much higher located in the Diversium. At this altitude, everyone can develop his own theory of personality, and survive…

Our layered way of thinking solves many contemporary impasses of knowledge, in fundamental physics, medicine, sociology, spirituality.

Finally, this theory of Ever and Everything explains how to extract itself from the problem of circularity: how make extrinsic evaluation of a theory that include everything ?

In ten volumes, do you think? No, only 30,000 words …