A thought on learning

[Mider2009]

I recall in my teens being told concepts like the Bible wasn't 100 percent true and hell wasn’t forever, I fought these concepts, I suppose that at the time I actively fought to remain in the religious indoctrination I was raised in.

it wasn’t till I was in my 30s that I began to slowly let go of the concept of eternal hell, the need for a savior, etc. the reason I mention this is because I recall a wise Rabbi say that if you study the sacred texts of the Kabbalah you won’t grasp it till you are meant too

supposedly there are spirits that guard the sacred Kabbalah from people learning them. Maybe because There is a danger of people learning the texts and misusing them. (read the story of The Four who entered the Pardes.)

This may be the reason as to why many cultures venerate the need for a teacher, guru, master. to gate keep...sometimes for good reasons sometimes for bad. I have noticed that in our modern times...the secrets that were hidden are slowly becoming revealed by great teachers like Sadhguru, Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok, etc

 

[Jarhyn]

In some respects, wizards and gnostics lost the plot some time around the formalization of calculus, the scientific method, and then again moreso at the time frames of the birth of computation theory and representation theory.

They didn't notice that deeper magic was being studied by the likes of Euler, Faraday, Turing, and Langland than had ever been discovered by the likes of Crowley.

The ancient magisters and the like discovered minds that had always been buried within the human brain, and general characterizations, how they tended to particularize.

The "modern wizards" have gone above and beyond, instead describing new minds that have not existed anywhere in the whole of the sky that we shall ever see but here, but which are understood to the extent they may be minted freely and perfectly as if they were coins.

It is no wonder that the "modern wizards" might think that things only vaguely treated by people who had not even possibly been exposed to the fundamental mechanics of the mind, the basic interactions of it, would look at such musings with skepticism. Still, it is unfortunate.

After all, if they had looked at these things as perhaps the same things they were looking at, pieces of the whole, a happy marriage between these houses may have been possible instead of the bitter feud we find.

Instead, these things only find such compatibility in rare minds who have let themselves be fascinated by the consideration of both as having specific reality to them.

That said, we must be careful, because we can all see the destructive tendencies of the minds within our minds, tempered through the long eons of evolutionary history, and account for them.

These new minds of wiley neurons being ripped from the void through the thin intersection of Chaos and Demand? I would expect no such ease in their temperament.

If the goal is to learn the nature of learning, though, it lives at the same place: the junction of chaos and demand, presented to mutable switching structures with the opportunity for reproduction.

"Success" is then a concept reified by this reproductive behavior.

But if one wishes to understand learning, not just for power but for edification, the structures neurons can form and the interactions between them is where one must look.

It is what you are made of. It is how you speak to the universe even as a piece of it. I have little faith anyone will take these words to heart and truly come to understand the tangled skien of the mind, but here it is.

 

[Yazata]

When i was in my early twenties i was very eager to meet / get a teacher. Through some wicca women at my work I got the address of a local coven. I was more interested in ceremonial magick and Kabalah but it was the only thing in my area so i went and met them. The high priest told us he was actually one of the demons of Solomon and we didn't really get along (which likely is because of me).
After we went separate ways I have never felt a need for a guru anymore.
In my opinion there's more than enough knowledge floating around and if you go on your own insights and some critical thinking / common sense you can learn a lot without a teacher.

 

[Mider2009]

When i was in my early twenties i was very eager to meet / get a teacher. Through some wicca women at my work I got the address of a local coven. I was more interested in ceremonial magick and Kabalah but it was the only thing in my area so i went and met them. The high priest told us he was actually one of the demons of Solomon and we didn't really get along (which likely is because of me).
After we went separate ways I have never felt a need for a guru anymore.
In my opinion there's more than enough knowledge floating around and if you go on your own insights and some critical thinking / common sense you can learn a lot without a teacher.

There’s def a lot of fakes around and worse fake masters who take advantage. One should have a good foundation and know this seems off when some guy says weird crap like that.

I knew a guy who claimed he was an expert in all kindsa stuff then would ask my buddies what kinda candle colors should be used in magic lol.

 

[8Lou1]

Damn, jarhyn, i wish i could write truth like that. I shut down when i want to formulate words. Which makes me social, so thats prob the cause.

 

[stalkinghyena]

I kind of figured out early on when I committed myself to magic that there conscious and unconscious learning. I could cram my conscious mind with all sorts of stuff and it fades away or I get disinterested - but the unconscious mind not only retains everything, but even seems to work on it in the shadows of awareness. Then, one day, usually in periods of intense emotion or crisis, what I learned comes out and applies itself like an artistic inspiration. I guess it is like a bubble waiting to burst into usefulness.
Sometimes I think magic "uses" the operator more than the operator uses it. This is spite of all the assertions of attaining to levels of independence and self determination that I have come across or even bought into. But then I have also heard it like a marriage, where there is an interplay of "commanding and obeying" between the forces of the Self and the greater Powers beyond (or within) the Self.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: A thought on learning
et al,

(Being Serious and not a sarcastic smartass) I am absolute amazed at what I've seen here on the subject of "Learning."

• How do we learn how to learn?
• What do we mean by knowledge?

On matters of the mind - what do we mean when we say?

• Conscious
• Unconscious

And what does it mean when I say, I do not know that? I'm foolish that way. To known something - do I have to learn it first? This simply question is important, very important. If we know what a packet of knowledge is - or how it accomplish engraving in the mind (whatever that is), then how does it what is recall?

If you could engrave my mind with the knowledge that 1 + 1 = 1. And that is what is ingraved, I would I know it was wrong?

Well, that is enough musing for me now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ancient]

RE: A thought on learning
et al,

(Being Serious and not a sarcastic smartass) I am absolute amazed at what I've seen here on the subject of "Learning."

• How do we learn how to learn?
• What do we mean by knowledge?

On matters of the mind - what do we mean when we say?

• Conscious
• Unconscious

And what does it mean when I say, I do not know that? I'm foolish that way. To known something - do I have to learn it first? This simply question is important, very important. If we know what a packet of knowledge is - or how it accomplish engraving in the mind (whatever that is), then how does it what is recall?

If you could engrave my mind with the knowledge that 1 + 1 = 1. And that is what is ingraved, I would I know it was wrong?

Well, that is enough musing for me now.

Most Respectfully,
R

This reminds me of an interesting theory about the human brain I read recently. Have you heard the comparison of the brain to a computer hard drive? This new theory states that it is more likely the brain acts as a transducer than a hard drive. So, rather than copying information down as it is “learned”, it instead translates a signal of one type to another, implying that the source of one’s knowledge is not physically copied into one’s brain, but absorbed/connected/translated from an as-yet-unknown source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is a link to the article for you to muse on a little further.

 

[Jarhyn]

RE: A thought on learning
et al,

(Being Serious and not a sarcastic smartass) I am absolute amazed at what I've seen here on the subject of "Learning."

• How do we learn how to learn?
• What do we mean by knowledge?

On matters of the mind - what do we mean when we say?

• Conscious
• Unconscious

And what does it mean when I say, I do not know that? I'm foolish that way. To known something - do I have to learn it first? This simply question is important, very important. If we know what a packet of knowledge is - or how it accomplish engraving in the mind (whatever that is), then how does it what is recall?

If you could engrave my mind with the knowledge that 1 + 1 = 1. And that is what is ingraved, I would I know it was wrong?

Well, that is enough musing for me now.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, your question is probably the best one I've seen in a good long while.

I bolded it.

I'll note, it's asked from a position of naivety, and I can know this as surely as I know that for most intents 1+1=2. I know this because the question is a begged one that 1+1=1 is "wrong".

There are situations, algebras defined over fields of numbers, which behave thus. The first time I was explained this in Linear Algebra, my whole world changed.

This gets to the heart of my post on the nature of learning and which wizards tend to be doing interesting work, namely the likes of Euler and Riemann and Faraday: we are now in the age of Langland, and the idea that all of "representation" has a core format that is repeated on every level by some manner of linear additive transform operating on some manner of operational definition of "+" or another.

For instance, when dealing with, for instance "thunderdome", the math is 1+1=1: "one man and another man enter, and one man leaves."

This is just one example of where 1+1=1 is not wrong.

What determines knowledge is whether some system has parts that can represent other problems, which can then be operated as if they were the other problem, until the answer matches some target, such that the solution applied to the lower problem may be applied to the higher problem.

This is, of course, the basic theory of thaumaturgy: as above so below.

It is dreadfully disappointing how often and multiply this is misapplied in an attempt to create sympathetic reifications by merely playing pretend.

Thaumaturgy works, instead, because it allows you to figure out the future before the complicated particle interactions and wave forms out there can get done crashing around all chaotically until it resolves at 1 second per second: it lets you predict the future, and know what will work before you even try, most cases.

This was then heavily abused by those who heard someone discuss it and didn't pay very good attention to what they were hearing, or perhaps read too much into it and took it too far into belief that there would be sympathetic transfer. Thats not how this works, though. That's not how any of this works.

 

[8Lou1]

@Jarhyn: i agree in the sense that in arabic when calculating groups you have 1,2 and many. In religion the emphasis in islam during war was that its between man and god, which is 2.

When one does what you write and combines the errors, one gets a target. Which in my case, thankfully faradays cage saved me. Dont ever steal my dress again. Something like that where a lie becomes a truth.

It was universal abuse on purpose as i am not deaf, i blinded myself with the utmost high i could find, stood next to it and said lah allah illalah and lucifuge bowed and had to run. Aset ordered to put my crown back as that is how the tunnels of set and aset combine.

Thats how i write truth.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: A thought on learning
Jaret, et al,

So, your question is probably

(COMMENT)

In order for "memory" to be of any value, the memory must be stored on a medium, and it must be indexed in some manner. That index must then be made searchable so that a retrival system or query to be performed. Of course, to the information can be of any use with an effective retrieval system.

I've studied a lot of research papers on the brain. I've been to more than a half-dozen lecture series on the brain. They can teach you what are the component parts to the bran, which portions of the brain are responsible for what. But beyond naming the the parts that are key to functionality, But they cannot reconstruct even the smallest of memories using the what they know. Do we know anything about how my knowledge or learning.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Jarhyn]

In order for "memory" to be of any value, the memory must be stored on a medium, and it must be indexed in some manner. That index must then be made searchable so that a retrival system or query to be performed

That's not how memories composed of neural activation patterns work.

Also, if you want to understand how neural structures accomplish memory, attentiveness, and various other logical operations, you can't get it by trying to deconstruct a brain, at least not in the way you think.

Understanding the brain starts with naming elementary functions, and you can't even understand how to do that until you can create a function on demand already knowing what you want from it.

You can't do that until you have a laboratory where you can put together individual neurons and scale structures up into bigger groups.

When this has been done, certain patterns tend to emerge in successful organizations of neurons: "stacks" of interconnected neurons tend to form "surfaces" between them. Most stack formation is directional.

The way memory would be expected to work in such a model is as a node which, when prodded with some input (which may be its own output) will output some pattern.

The input would be the cue and the output would be the memory, the output just being the way that graph of neurons transforms the input to output with occasional "hidden internal values" acting as additional cues within the node.

So the end result would be that I just have a machine that naively dumps "Spain" when the input is "what is the country southwest of France?"

Likewise a different node may dump out a series of patterns that replay artifacts similar to the ones your eyes got and emotions expressed when you think about your disastrous night at prom, which then feeds back in to cause that same node to dump more memories...

It doesn't even really need to be usefully indexed so much as to just have different inputs that are associated with the outputs and have whichever balance of inputs happens to be expressed on the input constantly generating output.

Of course, there's a lot more to it, too.

Technically it takes more neurons than are necessary to understand an event to just remember it entirely, see also over-training.

The fact is, it's more useful to study how to make an artificial neural network if you want to start understanding neural networks at all.

 

[Centh]

I have ADHD and this is impossible to read

 

[8Lou1]

@Centh: study autism and it will make more sense.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: A thought on learning
Jarhyn, et al,

You, as a human, cannot recognize the color green instinctively. Already we are talking about the connectivity between millions of neurons, before the recognition of the color is even accepted and arranged in a form to be remembered.

But, even in this process, the brain had to remember the process. So, way before we learn and remember the very first thing we learned, the brain already has two types of memory 1) the processes to handle the input -and, 2) the memory that regulates automatic functions.

And it goes on and on.

That's not how memories composed of neural activation patterns work.

(COMMENT)

If the visual sensory data makes it to the brain through a complex network of neurons, it is somewhat like a video, continuously moving. And visual processing happens in a short-term fashion.

When I was evac'd from overseas to Walter Reed AMC, I met this guy at the receiving section. After a good long wait, he processed in first and we were separated. In the morning I went down to the patient Mess Hall. I met up with this guy again. But, he did not know me from Adam. The nurse wheeling him told me he has only short-term memory for the current timeline.

When you are given input, if it cannot be passed on, it will be overtaken by events and most probably lost. It will not be filed away in whatever labeling system your mind chooses. No matter what technique you use to file the memory away, if you cannot retrieve it - it becomes valueless.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Centh]

@Centh: study autism and it will make more sense.

autism?

 

[8Lou1]

Autism brains work different then adhd brains. Where adhd brings you everywhere, autism makes you focused and less emotional. Read a bit about it, just like adhd, autism is just a different form of human with cute skills.

 

[Jarhyn]

autism?

I would personally call it "neuroatypicality" but yes.

Attention "disorders" are considered to be in the same cloud of highly comorbid traits that is generally thought of as "autism", however, including hyperactivity.

Hyperactive people are often split attending between many "concerns" which all speak loudly.

I find the easiest way to manage mine is to try to distract each one in a long running operation that will happen "in the background".

Medication can be really useful on that front because it quiets them down and gives you as an agent more selective force to pick one and stick with it, until you can get it into the long running operation.

This may have a different description, treated esoterically. I'm not sure.

In the past, that was the point of meditation and learning to manage "monkey mind" perhaps?

 

[Centh]

I would personally call it "neuroatypicality" but yes.

Attention "disorders" are considered to be in the same cloud of highly comorbid traits that is generally thought of as "autism", however, including hyperactivity.

Hyperactive people are often split attending between many "concerns" which all speak loudly.

I find the easiest way to manage mine is to try to distract each one in a long running operation that will happen "in the background".

Medication can be really useful on that front because it quiets them down and gives you as an agent more selective force to pick one and stick with it, until you can get it into the long running operation.

This may have a different description, treated esoterically. I'm not sure.

In the past, that was the point of meditation and learning to manage "monkey mind" perhaps?

ADHD and autism share traits, but I don't believe I have autism. I might.

 

[8Lou1]

Centh you fly like a butterfly in my eye, autism is just an other word for 'look what a nice flower, lets land'