The Brain: ZenUniverse 4.0

zencircle011

“Tao can Tao not Tao”

Lao Tzu

I have been looking at the Platonic Solids and thinking about how they correlate to the five senses. I thought about the left and right hemispheres of the brain and realized that each of the Platonic Solids should be truncated to represent the right hemisphere. Now I had ten solids to work with. I worked backward from this and recognized I had to create a separate left right pairing of each of the senses to represent the brain correctly five on the left and five on the right. I have to create pairs of senses, trios of senses, quartets of senses and a quintet of senses. This is because these are ways we learn. We learn most when our senses are learning as a quintet.  This is why complete immersion in the environment we are to learn about is so effective.

This is a major revision of all my previous work.  However, I feel it provides a much more robust sensory model.

isaacnewton-1689

“To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton’s legendary statement was the premise of my new design.  I saw there were five Platonic Solids and as a reaction they would produce the five Truncated Platonic Solids.  This would influence all the components of the Solids.

Radeo

Dadeo

Radeons.  They are radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in the Platonic Solids.  These are your right  origins.

radeo2

Tradeo

Ideons.  They are Ideal emissions which are temporal radical emissions.  These are based on the number of polytopes in Truncated Platonic Solids.  This is your left percetual spatial origin.

ideo1

Audeo

Audeons.  They are audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the faces of the Platonic Solids.  This is your right temporal plane.

audeo

Mudeo

Mudeons.  They are musical patterns which are temporal audal patterns.  These are based on the shape of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left temporal planes.

mudeo1

Nadeo

Nadeons.  They are nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Platonic Solids faces.  These are your right parietal arcs.

nadeo1

Gudeo

Gudions. They are gustal intensities which are temporal nasal intensities.  These are based on the angles of the Truncated Platonic Solid truncation faces.  These are your left parietal arcs.

gudeo2

Tadeo

Mates are Tadeons.  They tactal points.  These are the number of intersectin edges for each Platonic Solid’s polytope.

tadeo

Modeo

ReMates are Bodeons.  They are Basal points which are temporal tactal points.  These are the number of intersecting edges for each Truncated Platonic Solid’s polytopes.

modeo

Pyradeo

The pyramids contain the space of the radeons combined with the audeons.  Obtuse triangular pyramid, Right square pyramid, Right triangular pyramid, Right pentagonal pyramid, Acute triangular pyramid.

Ideo

Imadeons.  They are imadical solids.  These are a cound of the number of faces on the Regular Solids.

mageo

Video

Videons they are visical solids which are temporal imagical solids.  This is the the count of the number of truncation faces on the surface of the Truncated Platonic Solids.

video

Stateo Ateo Summary

brain

  1. GREEN: EYE: OCCIPITAL LOBE: visual center of the brain
  2. YELLOW: EAR: TEMPORAL LOBE: sensory center of hearing in the brain.
  3. SKY: NOSE: BRAINSTEM: control of reflexes and such essential internal mechanisms as respiration and heartbeat.
  4. BLUE: TONGUE: PARIETAL LOBE: Complex sensory information from the body is processed in the parietal lobe, which also controls the ability to understand language.
  5. ORANGE: BODY: CEREBELLUM: regulation and coordination of complex voluntary muscular movement as well as the maintenance of posture and balance.
  6. RED: MIND: FRONTAL LOBE: control of skilled motor activity, including speech, mood and the ability to think.

stadeo2

Link:

Advertisements

Databases: Structured Associative Model

oraclesentences

For years now I have been struggling with Relational DBMS technology and Associative DBMS technology attempting to get them to do what I want.  In my first efforts, Relational models were structurally restrictive, Dimensional models were unable to grow organically, EAV models are incompatible with relational architecture.  I came upon Simon Williams Associative Model of Data and although enthralled with its potential I found it too had limitations.  It was semi-structured and allowed for too much flexibility.  25 years in Information Technology had taught me that there was a single standard classification system for setting up databases not a plethora of ontologies.  I was determined to find the theoretical structure and was not concerned with hardware limitations, database architecture, abilties of current query languages or any other constraints.

The Associative Model of Data had made the difference in liberating me from Relational and Dimensional thinking.  A traditional ERD of the Associative Model of Data I at first thought would look like the following:

amdschema

Basically what you have is a Schema composed of Nodes with Node Associations through Verbs and Associations with Nodes Attributions through Verbs. The range of Node Entities, Verb Entities, Association Entities and Attribution Entities are endless.  As well the population of the Schema has an unlimited dataset of natural key values.  I have been challenged by Relational database specialists and SQL experts regarding the viability of this model within current limitations, however their arguments are irrelevant.  What is important is the logical validity of the model, not the physical validity.

After receiving the criticism I decided to revisit the model in order to simplify it.  I went over Simon William’s explanations of his model and its application and found I could reduce it to the following:

amdschema02

This was profoundly simpler and better reflected the Associative Model of Data’s Architecture.  But even with this simpler architecture I was not satisfied.  I felt that the Associatve Model although giving the benefit of explicitly defining the associations was a tabula rasa.  Research has shown that tabula rasa’s are contrary to the behavior of the finite physical universe.  There is an intermediate level of nature and nuture.  And this is what I sought to model.

zachman

When I first encountered the Zachman Framework, something about it struck me in a very profound way.  I could see there was something fundamental in its description of systems, however I felt that the metaphors that John Zachman used were wrong because they themselves lacked a fundamental simplicity.  The consequences of this were that those who studied under Zachman ultimately could not agree on what he was talking about.  Also the “disciplines” that Zachman’s Framework generated were continually reinventing the wheel.  Zachman had created a world of vertical and horizontal stovepipes.  To further the confusion Zachman refused to conceive of a methodology based upon his framework.  Consequently, there was no way to determine what the priorities were in creating a system.  I call this the Zachman Clusterfuck.

Zachman’s work spawned years of work for me.  I could see that systems had a fundamental structure, but I could not agree with Zachman.  Focuses and Perspectives were useless terms.  The construction metaphor was useless.  I read anything I could get my hands on dealing with systems, methodologies, modeling, networks and a broad range of other literature across the disciplines.  Out of this came a set of conclusions:

  1. There were a fundamental set of Noun Entities
  2. There were a fundamental set of Verb Entities
  3. There were a fundamental set of Association Entities
  4. There was a clear order in which the Nouns were addressed
  5. There was a clear order in which the Verbs were executed
  6. The structure was fractal
  7. The content was a scale-free network

I made some attempts at creating the vocabulary and experimented with this new Structured Thinking Language.  However, the real break came when I worked with John Boyd’s OODA Loop:

theboydpyramid

The OODA Loop revealed a governing structure for the methodology and guided my way into the following hybrid relational/dimensional/associational model I call the Structured Associative Model of Data:

samd

One of the key things this model demonstrates is the sequence followed by the OODA Loop.  Starting from the top, each dimension set spawns the next.  Choices are created from the dimensions.  There is no centrism to this model which is an inherent flaw in Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), Event based architecture, Data centric architecture, Goal-Directed Design, Rule based systems among others.  The stove pipes of Focuses and Pespectives disappear by reasserting a clear order of priorities and dependencies for achieving success.  The model also supports bottom up inductive as well as top down deductive sequencing.  This will make the system able to reconfigure to handle exceptions.

Some of the things I have learned in designing this model include the realization that unit defines datatype and that all measures are variable character string text.  This is because any displayed value is only a symbolic representation of the actual quantity.  If operations are to be performed on measures they are converted to the correct type as part of the operation.  I also recognized that Unit was necessary to define the scale and scalability of the system.  Further, it became apparent that analog calculations should not be practiced.  Every value should be treated as discrete and aggregated.

Another aspect of this system is the inclusion of currency and amount.  I have been critical of Zachman and academics for their hypocrisy regarding the economics of systems.  All systems have a cost and a benefit and they are measurable in currency.  Contrary to the reasoning of the majority, every decision is ultimately economic.

Tim Brown of IDEO has coined the term “Design Thinking” and has been toying with the concept for some time.  Many designers dwell on the two dimensional concept of divergence and convergence as modes of thought.  If we look at my model, divergence is the creation of choice while convergence is selection of choice.  There is no alteration or deletion of choice in my model as history is preserved.

Now what you have is a unencumbered framework with a clear methodological sequence.

czerepakcognitary

Welcome to the Cognitary Universe.

Jared Diamond: Societal Collapse

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Jared Diamond: System Collapse“, posted with vodpod

If you listen carefully to what Jared Diamond is saying in the TED video above, he is describing not a five part, but a six part power curve into a systemic singularity. This has been one of the core themes of discussion of this blog.  We all seem to be too close to our problems to see the commonality.  The interrogatives come into play here:

  1. Goals
  2. People
  3. Functions
  4. Forms
  5. Times
  6. Distances

Times and Distances being the basis on which the higher orders are built.

When we look at the recent economic “crisis” we see 300 trillion in currency circulating and roughly 1 trillion to 2 trillion shifting suddenly and unexpectedly.  We witnessed a systemic collapse, a singularity, a tipping point, a power curve, an exponential change, a phase transition or whatever label you want to call it.  These have been happening everywhere since Time and Distance began in different contexts and orders both in human and non-human systems.

What Jared Diamond and other alarmists are implying is that human society is now a system approaching its final singularity in this century on this planet.  We are implying that today we are experiencing a less than one percent crisis on a power curve into a singularity.  How many more iterations will the global system withstand?  Will humanity make the step into space successfully before we experience a global dark age?  How will the six or more factors in the power curve play out?

The truth to me appears to be that power curves whether they play out or not result in either a systemic climax or anti-climax followed by a systemic collapse.  Would it not be better if we experienced a systemic climax that led to us expanding into the solar system?

Systemic collapse seems to be the fashion of this generation.  Every generation looks with fascination at its own youth, maturition, reproduction and acceleration into mortality.  Some die early, some die late, but all die.  It is an irrevocable law of nature.  It is not about self-interest.  It is about what self-interest is defined as.

Related Posts:

Beyond the Singularity

Servitas and Libertas

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Icons: The Czerepak Framework

Tearing apart the Zachman Framework has yielded great results.  I have identified the core nodes and links (we won’t use the terms entities and associations any more).  The new Nodes of the Czerepak Framework are:

  1. Computers
  2. Machines
  3. Goals
  4. Observers
  5. Elements
  6. Particles
  7. Points
  8. Events

The new Links are:

  1. Operations
  2. Processes
  3. Rules
  4. Names
  5. Bonds
  6. Quanta
  7. Distances
  8. Durations

If you look at the link icons you can see what I am hypothesizing as the optimum cardinality for each.  I am thinking about this from the perspective of the Platonic solids, R. Buckminster Fuller’s work, Stuart Koffman’s work with chaos theory and Boolean networks and Albert Einstein’s own love for geometry.

The set of icons created to this point are below:

Systema Framework Datatypes

A new insight that has come to me in working with the Systema Framework is the realization that datatypes are not chaotic or random.  Datatypes are specific to the column they are in.

  1. Logic is restricted to Text attributing the interrogative
  2. Organic is restricted to Integers attributing the cardinality
  3. Heuristic is restricted to Boolean attributing the paths or sets
  4. Pragmatic is restricted to Decimal attributing the metric
  5. Chronic is restricted to Datetime attributing the event
  6. Cosmic is restricted to Spatial attributing the node

The interesting thing is the framework is two dimensional.  This means that each of the six interrogatives is provided with each of the six datatypes in a structured fashion.

When you give this thought in this disciplined fashion, it becomes obvious that the Zachman Framework and the Systema Framework are inadequate to explain the complexity of datatypes we experience.  I will provide a solution in my next post.

Danger or Pluralarity?

Thinking about pluralities I was motivated to dig out and dust off my copy of Nicholas G. Carr’s book, Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. In this piece of pulp Nicholas droned on about the commoditization of hardware and software and the end of the IT industry.

What Nicholas was witnessing in 2003 was the plurality of one generation of hardware and software. Everybody had an office suite and enterprise software suite.  And rightly, they were no longer providing a competitive advantage. What Nicholas was experiencing was a complete lack of imagination with regard to the opportunities the pluralarity presented: the next generation of innovation leading to the next singularity.

In hind sight it was funny how Nicholas shook everybody up, but I didn’t find myself looking for a new career, I found myself looking for innovation and in many respects we found it in Open Source and Web 2.0 Social Software.

I have also found that Relational Database technology is reaching plurality and its limitations are becoming more pronounced as application developers test its limits. It simply does not have the flexibility we need. I’ve seen the future in the Associative Model of Data and have found it fits the Zachman Framework better than current technologies. The need is growing and this architecture fits it.

What Nicholas and all of us should have still been reading was this book:

Peter is still the authority when it comes to experience based instruction.

Systema Framework: Structured Thinking Advances

Forget Microsoft. Forget Apple. Let’s break the rules and create something truly beautiful.

This is the new Systema Framework. Let’s look at definitions for each of the icons. I want you to note that putting this together even close to coherently is taking considerable time and I will be revising this post repeatedly.

Things I’ve learned:

  • I am abandoning the term entity for the term logos which is closer to the correct concept we are dealing with.  Logic deals with the logos (words) of reason versus the forms (things) of reality.
  • I have found that de Bono lead me to realize that a relationship or association is not the correct term for these connections. The correct term is “directive” because the connector has a source.verb.target structure. Sun Tzu would call it a command. Ultimately, all people are directors not actors.
  • The real genius of Zachman was creating a two dimensional framework where all his predecessors had only provided one dimension.
  • “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Reaction is induction. Action is deduction. Thus a bottom up inductive process involves:
    • Reintuition, Renegation, Reobjection, Reposition, Redirection and Recreation
  • While a top down deductive process involves:
    • Creation, Direction, Position, Objection, Negation and Intuition
  • The finer points can be debated.
  • I find the relational model is not best adapted to this framework. The associative model of data found at LazySoft is better equipped to meet the framework’s requirements.

Systema Framework Terms

Systema Framework Icons

Icon Definitions

CREATIVE Logic Logics

CREATIVE are the logic logos in your system. These are the logos you will use to explain your motives. Another way to look at it is using Edward de Bono’s hats in two dimensions: Creative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Moral Law.

DIRECTIVE Logic Organics

DIRECTIVE are the logic directions in your system.  Reason directions are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive.  They connect source reason logos and target reason logos. In de Bono hats Creative directions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Command.

POSITIVE Logic Methodics

POSITIVE are logic methods in your system. Reason methods are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive. Ultimately the reason methods act on the reason forms. In de Bono hats Creative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Training.

OBJECTIVE Logic Pragmatics

OBJECTIVE deals with the logic forms you add to the system. In de Bono hats Creative objections. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Discipline.

NEGATIVE Logic Cosmics

NEGATIVE is the logic universe of your system. The reason nouns, reason verbs, reason methods and reason forms have been created and are an existing part of your system. In de Bono’s hats Creative Negations. Note that it is called a negative because a cosmos can only falsify a system otherwise it simply corroborates. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Terrain.

INTUITIVE Logic Chronics

INTUITIVE are the logic triggers applied to the reason universe of your system. Changes to reason forms are reason triggers. In de Bono hats Creative intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Heavens.

CREATOR Organic Logics

CREATOR are the director logos (plant, animal, person) in your system. In de Bono hats Directive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Moral Law.

DIRECTOR Organic Organics

DIRECTOR are the director directions between director logos. In de Bono hats Directive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Command.

POSITOR Organic Methodics

POSITOR are the director methods applied to director forms. In de Bono hats Directive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Training.

OBJECTOR Organic Pragmatics

OBJECTOR are the director forms. In de Bono hats Directive objections. In Sun Tzu factors Command Discipline.

NEGATOR Organic Cosmics

NEGATOR is the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Terrain.

INTUITOR Organic Chronics

INTUITOR are the director triggers applied to the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Heavens.

CREATE Methodic Logics

CREATE is the methodic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Positive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Moral Law.

DIRECT Methodic Organics

DIRECT is the methodic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Positive directions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Command.

POSIT Methodic Methodics

POSIT is the methodic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Training.

OBJECT Methodic Pragmatics

OBJECT is the methodic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Training Discipline.

NEGATE Methodic Cosmics

NEGATE is the methodic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Terrain.

INTUIT Methodic Chronics

INTUIT is the methodic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATION Pragmatic Logics

CREATION are the pragmatic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Moral Law.

DIRECTION Pragmatic Organics

DIRECTION are the pragmatic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Command.

POSITION Pragmatic Methodics

POSITION are the pragmatic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Training.

OBJECTION Pragmatic Pragmatics

OBJECTION are the pragmatic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Discipline.

NEGATION Pragmatic Cosmics

NEGATION are the pragmatic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Terrain.

INTUITION Pragmatic Chronics

INTUITION are the pragmatic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATORY Cosmic Logics

CREATORY are the universe logos of the system. In de Bono hats Negative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Moral Law.

DIRECTORY Cosmic Organics

DIRECTORY are the univserse directions of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Directives. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Command.

POSITORY Cosmic Methodics

POSITORY are the universe methods of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Training.

OBJECTORY Cosmic Pragmatics

OBJECTORY are the universe forms of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Discipline.

NEGATORY Cosmic Cosmics

NEGATORY are the universe universe of the system. In de Bonos hats Negative Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Terrain.

INTUITORY Cosmic Chronics

INTUITORY are the universe triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Heavens.

CREATUM Chronic Logics

CREATUM are the chronic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Moral Law.

DIRECTUM Chronic Organics

DIRECTUM are the chronic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Command.

POSITUM Chronic Methodics

POSITUM are the chronic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Training.

OBJECTUM Chronic Pragmatics

OBJECTUM are the chronic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Discipline.

NEGATUM Chronic Cosmics

NEGATUM are the chronic universe of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Terrain.

INTUITUM Chronic Chronics

INTUITUM are the chronic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Heavens.