User talk:Dibrisim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please, add your messages under appropriate topic. Also, visiting my website may help in reducing misunderstandings: Imagination is Greater than Knowledge

Thank you.Damir Ibrisimovic 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Consciousness

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Complexity

You obviously like to think, talk and write about these subjects. A good way to work on that is to implement some of your ideas in articles like this complex system, or complexity, complexity theory, agent etc. Good luck with that. - Mdd 00:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I like to think. I'm also thinking about other, seemingly unrelated, subjects like perception, cognition, neurology, philosophy etc. And I do publish ideas on my website Imagination is Greater than Knowledge that has already received some echoes. As for publishing them in encyclopaedia, I'm not so sure that this would be the place to publish own ideas.
In relation to complexity, the most of the ideas I presented here are not really mine. (The way of expressing them - maybe, since I managed to compress the most of the basic stuff of the whole book: Thinking in Complexity by Klaus Mainzer.) However, I like to help. And this also often helps me to better articulate ideas in general.
Not only because of my English, I will limit myself, for the time being, to discussions like this one. If you think that my input will be appreciated at other places, please let me know.
Damir Ibrisimovic 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I read some of your ideas on your website... and your right that Wikipedia is not the place to write about your own ideas: Wikipedia allows no original research. It want to represent the common existing ideas. Now you allready know that writing about this helps to clear your own mind. That is one of my motivations too. Your presummed lack of English shouldn't be much of a problem. It looks all right to me. I'm from Holland and my English is not to good, but I am learning and in the mean time I rely on others to correct those mistakes. The mean problems, in my opinion, are to find the right places/spots to write and the right (common) way to write about the subjects. And to find source to back up, the things you write. I have seen that you made more contributions to these talk pages in the past. Maybe you should also try to edit the articles itzelve. Just wait and see. You can also started in your own native language. Good luck with it? - Mdd 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this anonymousness in Wikipedia rather confusing. On my talk page I introduce myselve and there is a link to my own Dutch homepage. Why should you talk about yourselve in the third person?

One last thing about the English. A spelling checker can do some work for you... I have futher accepted for the moment, that I'm writting very simple English. So I won't write featured articles. But that is ok. There is lot's of other things to do. - Mdd 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the Talk:Complex system

The following items are moved here from the Talk:Complex systems page after serveral hints, because they don't relate to article - Mdd 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interdisciplinary approach

I have placed a call for interdisciplinary approach, as areas of interest, at Talk:Perception. Personally, I see a lot in common between many, seemingly separated, disciplines. So, don’t be surprised if I bring in Stanislavsky’s stage acting theory, for example, as something very close to what we are discussing here.

Also, I have received notification on “Hello from my Heart” days (11-21 September). This might seem inappropriate, but:

From my heart,

Damir Ibrisimovic 09:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory (According to DI)

Since it was conceived here I hope that you will allow me to place it here for your review.

I have drafted another page. Currently, I’m restructuring the whole website and hoping to have it published by October or November. (Take it as an example of Complex System.)

I would also like to ask for a favour. Feel free to forward this to your friends and if you know somebody who might know Klaus Mainzer (author of "Thinking in Complexity), please feel free to forward this email. I would really like that this reaches him since his input would be precious. Of course, input from you and others will also be gratefully received. Please note that I did not provide examples. Here I am in two minds since examples may inhibit imagination of others. Please, let me know what you think.

[edit] Theory Imagination is Greater than Knowledge

The complexity theory tests sorely the unlearning phase of learning. Even more so the unlearning phase of professionals, since they have so much more to unlearn. And this requires a brief and clear explanation of basics of the complexity theory. But, before that, a little bit about what has to be unlearned:

Descartes planted a seed (see mystery) of what we now call system theory by describing how we see the world. This, 17th century description evolved as much it could, giving us such marvels as computers are. There is a trouble though in longevity of descriptions. They very quickly become habitual and each refinement cements them into something that is hard to question. The hard to question description and described become a kind of synonym. Fortunately, the world we live in will never yield to our theories and exceptions (based upon observations) will start to accumulate until their weight makes our descriptions untenable and we start to look for different descriptions.

Descarters’ seed (that accumulated so many exceptions in these three centuries) could be outlined as three, time separated events in a cause & effect fashion:

  • Input (perception) that receives information from environment through a variety of input devices (senses).
  • Processing of the information received from input devices in CPU (brain).
  • Output of the information gained through processing at output devices.

The experimental evidence provided by psychologists and lately by neurologists simply could not be forced into this, simplistic picture. The cracks between description (we were so much used to) and described appeared sharply in focus. The need for replacement of this picture that passed its “use by date” was obvious, but we had no other picture to replace it with.

Inadequacies of (or exceptions to) Descartes’ seed were noted not only by psychologists and neurobiologists, but also by biologists, astronomers, anthropologists, sociologists, economists etc. In short, inadequacies were noted in all disciplines and activities humanity is interested in and all (or most) of them need to find their place in a new seed. Although the complexity theory still has a mammoth task ahead in “tutoring” the unlearning of the scientific/technical majority, signs of the success are emerging at the horizon. And the version of complexity theory described by Klaus Mainzer in his book “Thinking in Complexity” seems to have the best chance.

From the perspective of complexity theory it is possible to look at the whole world (universe) as complex system in constant flux of energy levels. This perspective could also be applied to any part of our universe, from a minuscule detail (wave/particles & space/time) to planetary systems, galaxies, their clusters etc.

The complexity theory introduces new concepts understanding of which is essential. The basic concepts are listed and explained below with alternative words and expressions (in brackets) that are used to facilitate other explanations.

It is important to note that in the complexity theory we do not have sequences of events or cause & effect relations but rather all elements of the system and system itself tuning to each other until equilibrium is found. The equilibrium is defined as one of one or more energetically lowest states of the entire system.

Energy Level: roughly falls into three categories in which the system has 1) energy levels that keep the system oscillating between potential stable states, 2) threshold energy level at which the system is about to fall into one of the stable states and 3) energy levels that are below the threshold.

Emergent Property (attribute or resonance): one of (likely) more than one stable states (resonances) in which the system as a whole can be. If sufficient energy is introduced into the system as a whole (to raise energy level above threshold) it will start to oscillate between states again. The stable system exhibits one (emergent) of few potential properties, i.e. resonates in one of few potential resonances.

Symmetry Splitting: The system can contain various levels of energy some of which are above certain threshold and keep the system oscillating between potential stable states. When energy level of the system drops to threshold level, the symmetry splitting occurs and the system is stabilised.

Agent (oscillator, element of the system or subsystem): Element of the system that impacts other elements is called agent. The agent impacts (tunes) other agents within the system while being itself impacted (tuned) by others at the same time.

Tuning (impact or interplay): (re-)action of an agent (oscillator) towards other agents coupled with (re-actions) from other agents (oscillators). The tuning as a process ends with a resonance within the system. It could be also related to falling energy levels of the system until a stable state is reached.

The behaviour of the system could be imagined as roulette with a small ball spinning along the edge of the disk with one or more indentations (valleys) between the edge and the centre. Valleys could be of various depths representing energy levels of stable system to be. Inevitably, the ball loses energy and starts its journey towards the centre. As it encounters valleys it starts to jump in and out of valleys and losing energy further. Although deeper valleys and valleys closer to the edge have higher chances to trap the ball, the ball still can end up in other. When the ball is finally trapped in one of the valleys, the symmetry is split and system becomes stable exhibiting one (of potentially few) emergent properties.

Since the system could be always seen as a subsystem, there is continuous flow of energy in and out (tuning with the environment). If the former prevails, the system is increasingly destabilised until energy levels above the threshold are reached. The opposite happens if energy flow out prevails.

Theoretically there is infinity of subsystem/system levels. It would be neither wise nor practical to put any limits. However, a “cut” into few levels is always possible and at our “level” quite manageable.

Damir Ibrisimovic 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real life example

I could not resist from giving a real life example of "longevity of descriptions". It is right before our eyes in Wikipedia. Just visit entries on perception, consciousness, intent etc. Although naming neurology and psychology as scientific disciplines relevant to considerations of these and other entries, not a single visible impact of findings. Philosophers seem to think that their 17th centuries based ideas are right anyway. Are they praying that there will be other findings that will invalidate the existing ones?

Damir Ibrisimovic 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that none of the foregoing, and nothing I could find on dibrisim's site contains any references whatsoever. In much of what he says above, he seems to be discussing the concept of an attractor landscape, possibly unknowingly. He also seems to be groping for the concept of a phase transition. In any case, it is quite impressionistic and to a very large extent appears to be quite personal/original research.
If this is going to be done right, appeals need to be made to the literature. Complex systems is really not that mysterious; it's almost a mature science now with quite clear and *rigorous* concepts. Please, just read the literature: Haken, Prigogine, Holland, Kelso etc.
Duracell 18:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (center for complex systems @ fau.edu)

Partially agree and confirm that some parts are result of my thoughts. However, I wish to point out that we sorely miss a coherent picture of a complex system. I did oversimplify on purpose. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. Also, this is a draft submited to Klaus Meizner and will be include references when published. Damir Ibrisimovic 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but requests like this shouldn't be made on the talk page of articles. Better move these thoughts to a user subpage in Wikipedia, and requests to people on their talk page. - Mdd 10:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Marcel, I have considered this, but duracell's talk page does not seem to be visited by duracell himself. I would also prefer if duracell has some objections of this kind to place them on my talk page as well. All ad hominem type conversations should be placed there. Damir Ibrisimovic 11:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing personal, but this talk page (like all take pages in Wikipedia) are reserved to only talk about article related items. This page is not a forum for complex systems. - Mdd 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impressionistic wanderings

Dear duracell(?),

Pardon me for digression, but would you consider William Shakespeare as one of the greatest scientist of all times? I certainly would. He not only dwarfs psychologists of nowadays with his insights about human nature, he also dwarfs scientists of nowadays in his ability to convey his insights to wide audience. I find this situation sad.

Ability to explain something in simple terms requires deep understanding. Unfortunately, dismissals like “impressionistic wanderings” seem to prevail. I would appreciate, therefore, particulars about what is wrong in my “impressionistic wanderings”, possibly without labels.

Sincerely, - Damir Ibrisimovic 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm sorry that I moved your contribution, but I'm trying to stay focuss on the task of creating an encyclopedia. I added the hint to the Talk:Complex systems page, that:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Complex system article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

In the links you can read about what is allowed and what not. I hope you respect this. Now I did think about the question for feed back. I however didn't respond because I first wanted to set this straight. If you like I can give you my opinion, here. Greetings - Mdd 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Thank you. However, the criteria for what does and what does not belong to talk page are still not clear and my question remains.
  2. I would be grateful, though, if you direct me to the forum for general discussion on complexity at Wikipedia.
  3. Your feedback is, of course, welcome.
From my heart, Damir Ibrisimovic 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but first: what questions and what forum? Wikipedia is no forum and has no general forum? Read the quidelines. The first thing you read there is:

  • The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

- Mdd 08:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marcel,
I bow to rules. However, I would like to voice some concerns related to the policy you might consider and raise within hierarchy.
I do not know how much my discussion influenced your views and I leave open this for your consideration. As editor, you are in position to choose what is relevant for an article and what is not. This, in itself, is a kind of personal view, regardless of efforts made to avoid this.
The policy of “boundaries” around an article fosters compartmentalisation. What was “traditionally” in the domain of philosophy, for example, continues to be “owned” by philosophically oriented editors and there is no room for input from other compartments. And the complexity articles will face this dichotomy.
There is a need to cross boundaries of compartments. Otherwise philosophers will continue to talk about consciousness, for example, that has nothing to do with scientific findings in psychology and neurology. At one place we have presented one view and at another something completely different on the same topic. This situation is not only strange; it also goes against aspirations of an encyclopaedia.
This is not “a personal view” only. It is, or should be, shared interest in Wikipedia.
From my heart, Damir Ibrisimovic 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I first have to set some things straight.

  • I'm not working just as a Wikipedia editor
  • I initiated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems to bring the whole representation of systems and systems science in Wikipedia on a higher level.
  • I moved you contributions in the role of WikiProject Systems initiator because your contributions do not directly related to the working on the article.
  • I don't oppose philosophically oriented contributions to articles, or talk pages ... but they directly have to relate.

An other the thing is that in all my contributions to wikipedia I'm working rather top down... with a systems approach. When I'm looking at an article one of the first things I look at is where the information comes from and where it supposed to go to. What are the roots, or references (input)?? and to what does the article want to contribute in what field (out)? My first interest is these connections.

Now I think one of the nice things of Wikipedia is, that it wants to represent the state of knowledge and know-how, and doesn't want to cross boundaries not already crossed. In your work I sense this is something you do want to do. What I however am missing in your work is the relation (commitment) to the current knowledge. It seems as if you want to recreate every thing by yourselve all over again?. - Mdd 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marcel,
I did not create Benjamin Libet's findings... And they do have an impact on complexity related articles. Consequently, it is not me wanting to recreate everything.
Best wishes, Damir Ibrisimovic 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stage & Audience

What happens if audience laughs a bit longer and actor does not wait? Even in film, there is imagined audience (hidden in camera). Best, Damir Ibrisimovic 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right to say that there is an imagined audience in the cinema, insofar as cinematic fiction isn't documentary, literally overhearing. But if your research is exploring complexity, you need to demonstrate a feedback loop affecting different states of the system, and this is not present in the cinema, by definition. You're right to point out that in the theatre, the actor will make pragmatic adjustments to the audience's response. However, a single adjustment doesn't make for a feedback loop, which presupposes a 'structural' process of continuous variation, not mere adjustments to an unchanging essence. There is a historical dimension in operation here too - Stanislavski's approach sought to actively suppress all the interaction that you're talking about - discouraging applause, vocalizations of response, playing to the audience, dimming of the auditorium lights so the actors can't see them and the audience can't see each other, etc. Everything in Stanislavski's theatre is designed to dampen the potential for theatrical feedback. The audience is cast as peeping toms, as if thru a keyhole, and encouraged to relate to the action only in terms of empathetic projection. 'Complexity' implies something much more fundamental than interaction - the latter may be described just as easily as 'dialectical', which is an utterly different model. For complexity to arise, the interaction has to impact on the essential identity of the terms (the size of a population group, for example), I think. DionysosProteus 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about Stanislavski’s intentions. It is interesting to note, however, that cinema and theatre still attract audience despite TV. From my experience people want to share feelings, even though they do not see each other in the dark. This feeling of belonging, diminished by excessive individualism, is still strong in all of us. And this feeling could be (hard to achieve) amplified in theatre and if well played feelings could lead to what we call catharsis. I’m especially interested in theatre here for it could lift the feeling of belonging much more than rituals in Church, for example. From my perspective, actors “manipulate” feelings of audience by playing their bodies as fine instruments. A good actor can size the whole audience and make it breath with him. In this, how much they are aware of what they are doing, as long the act is true. Maybe my web-pages on Orchestra and Togetherness could be of some interest.

Best, Damir Ibrisimovic 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)