tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75241044442483692952024-03-13T01:10:50.234-07:00Miro Brada<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0R0kp5nwRg">look at FILM 'Discontinuity'</a>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-88064642897114485832015-03-12T04:24:00.002-07:002022-03-23T05:36:39.456-07:00Personality Model<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
In 1995, as a student of psychology inspired by natural science, I defined a logical model of personality explaining psychosis. I created (for my MA thesis, 1998 and grant research, 1999) new kind of tests assessing intelligence, creativity, prejudices, expectations to show more exact methods in psychology. During my Phd study in economics, I developed '<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/maximization-of-originality.html">Maximization of Uniqueness (Originality)</a>' model enhancing the classic utility to explain irrational motivations linking economics and psychology. Later I became computer programmer developing functional programming. According to Personality model (and my experience in <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/chess-composition-as-art.html">chess composition</a>), I've built server and client logic of information system <a href="http://www.each.co.uk/">www.each.co.uk</a>, and produced visual art. I presented the excerpts of 'Personality Model' in a few articles, and later as part of my art exhibitions: <a href="https://twitter.com/kenandchelsea/status/395587275293081600/">From Animation</a> (Oct 2013, Holland Park, London), <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=769768446426243">Parallax 12</a> (Feb 2015, Chelsea Town Hall, London), <a href="http://start.mehrwertzone.net/blog/fading-memory-vom-schwinden-der-erinnerung">Fading Memory</a> (Sep 2015, Weißenohe / Nuremberg, Germany). Another work: <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-science-is-subset-of-art.html">The Science is a subset of the Art</a> extends Personality Model to art, society.
At the end I add example and explanation of a special problem, when the higher intelligence leads to a wrong solution. It was published in Japanese Journal Problem Paradise in 1999.
All presented results can be repeated. Computer testing would enable to acquire more data and more exact analysis. Personality Model was presented on <a href="http://www.easyconferences.eu/issc2016/files/ISSC2016%20-%20The%20Book%20of%20Abstracts%2026072016.pdf" target="_blank">Monday 25. July, at ISSC 2016 conference in Santorini, Greece</a>, <a href="http://www.mjubadukstudies.com/en/2016/11/05/kaistksbs-international-workshop-logical-foundations-of-strategic-reasoning/" target="_blank">Korean KAIST center in Daejon</a>, and <a href="https://symmadelaide2016.wordpress.com/notable-participants/" target="_blank">Australian Adelaide's conference on Symmetry.</a><a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAPM-5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAPM-5.pdf" style="float: right;" target="_blank">on Phillpapers</a>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-size: 14px; padding-bottom: 12px; text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<iframe width=600 height=381 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fUR4ipbKl08?autoplay=1" frameborder="0" >
</iframe>
</div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.easyconferences.eu/issc2016/files/ISSC2016%20-%20The%20Book%20of%20Abstracts%2026072016.pdf" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGBrfR6k5PYZBrIUlZoeor7K-0pE13GYfBkQQtswUIMlkrRcV8zXWdwvtI9bhi2gkfsoHVypNVoXTJ_TjuVQ387KEKEyRlWLH2XL4TKobSFNjy6N0NQBLDKDkACMSRcxWNaB4nY9tQk4A/s1600/ISSC.2016.Miro.Brada.jpg" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Reality</b> consists of <b>unique units</b>: If '<b>p</b>' occurs with probability <b>1/a</b>, next '<b>p</b>' has probability <b>1/a²</b>. Identical units can't exist, not due to manufacture limit (Heisenberg's uncertainty) to produce identical things, but because they differ by probabilities (positions, creation times).</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br />
<b>Intellect</b> links unique units in given time to <b>logical series</b> of 'identical' change (add, rotate, sum, etc). The more linked units, the higher <b>intelligence</b>. The more different logic, the higher <b>flexibility</b>. The less likely logic, the higher <b>originality</b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Personality</b> is sum of <b>logical series</b> linked by intellect in given environment, time. The intelligence is distributed in personalities' series (changing in time). The core series is <b>self-identity</b> of '<b>ME</b>'s in various times, spaces (I am same now, yesterday, last year, tomorrow. My hand, leg, head, eye is ME..).<br />
<br />
<b>Psychosis</b> (schizophrenia, manic-depression) captures intellect in one series (<b>vicious circle</b> of self-refutations) absorbing all intelligence
of all series(es) including self-identify. Intelligence is captured, not necessarily deteriorated as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Kraepelin" target="_blank">E. Kraepelin (1865-1926)</a> thought.
The form of vicious circle: p, p, p, p... defines psychosis. The content is secondary, which corresponds to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Jaspers" target="_blank">K. Jaspers</a>' General Psychopathology (1913).
But Jaspers never defined the psychosis, his work is just description.
As I'll show later: the higher intelligence, the lower chance of psychosis. And the more opportunities, the lower chance of psychosis.
So Kraepelin was statistically right, but psychosis can occur with a high intelligence too.
On the other hand, a popular belief - a high intelligence or genius increases the risk of psychosis (or mental disease), is untrue.
It may be partially true, only due to long-term lack of opportunities, or (intentional) social exclusion.
</div>
<div style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; padding-top: 15px;">
Analogy to Personality is computer with multiple processes (series(es)) occupying a memory and processor time (intelligence). The core process (BIOS) is a must for other processes. Psychosis is a process out of control (memory leak) occupying all memory, processor's time.<br />
<br />
Intelligence is one. 'Social', 'emotional', 'xy' intelligence is illusion. E.g. <b>empathy</b> needs certain intelligence to understand others. It doesn't guarantee empathy (pro-social behaviour), but probability of empathy (and less <b>prejudice</b>s) raises with the level of intelligence.<br />
<br />
Personality's typology (e.g. extrovert-introvert) is illusion: attractive woman can be 'extrovert' having many opportunities to socialize because of her beauty, not her 'extrovercy'. Special conditions (lack or abundance) with certain intelligence, lead to certain behaviour. Change of conditions may change the behaviour, but not always: special period (imprinting) or e.g. intensive frustration may contribute to (more or less) permanent attributes (logical series) of self-identity.<br />
<br />
Frustration (lack of opportunities) limits empathy regardless of intelligence captured by intricate justification of prejudices (very high intelligence uncovers the falsehood of such justification). Deficient intelligence or lasting frustration may evolve to: <b>neurosis </b>(unaware of prejudices: unconscious control), <b>psychopathy </b>(aware of prejudices: lying, pretending) or <b>psychosis </b>(ceaseless self-refutations). Personality <b>disorders</b> can overlap: neurosis can accompany psychopathy and vice-verse, and can disappear or reappear (only) in certain conditions enforcing disorders. E.g. <b>enforced psychopathy</b> occurs if a lie is necessary to survive. Everyone is sometimes neurotic (small obsessions), psychopathic (small lies).
</div>
<div style="clear: both; float: left; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7u0rWVFAZbGGGmv51X9dZ6WbV95nVRCCsGJ6e3bPl7CRuPdyZwCijYooTjojs4sGN1FQQLt9cVUtM2JrZuH_JNeEi3vcCesv41hq2as0pg9tei69UQAUcgbTnr7wQ2npP3wlSAmxSd6A/s1600/YO.Miro.Brada.gif" width="500" />
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; padding-top: 15px; text-align: center;">
<b>Questionnaire of Unbiased Judgement: Logic of Prejudices</b></div>
Prejudice (biased judgement) is a self-defence mechanism to preserve wishful self-image based on identification with permanent or changing attributes: sex, talent, minority, success, illness etc.
Some attributes are same e.g. adults, dolphins, artists are mammals, have 2 eyes, 1 head etc, the other are unique: fingerprints, number of corpuscles etc.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLt3symAEN2Vub98UTmMtSkAnV51IZi_XdgZkAXhzERSh6wkH6IuntaUQashuJ6Qzhb0cmtJqREGvpJ700ywEDb9NBqcKbjWRAv-19LFDHXGjztjZNcBy2lDufKnBoezSBTXtd72QdCZg/s1600/Reality_same_unique.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLt3symAEN2Vub98UTmMtSkAnV51IZi_XdgZkAXhzERSh6wkH6IuntaUQashuJ6Qzhb0cmtJqREGvpJ700ywEDb9NBqcKbjWRAv-19LFDHXGjztjZNcBy2lDufKnBoezSBTXtd72QdCZg/s400/Reality_same_unique.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Self-identity consists of various - same and unique units
(attributes). The bias is in (a) favour or (b) against own identity's unit. E.g. (a) a minority person underrates majority, rich blame poor, etc, or (b) a minority person idealizes majority, poor blame poor etc. The higher intelligence and less frustration, the less biases. Questionnaire has 10 sentences with 6 answers: 1 right, 1 evasive ('it is too complex'), 2 underrating other identities, 2 overrating. Instruction is: "mark just ONE judgement that appears to you the most truthful." Here are 4 examples:
</div>
<div>
As for physical attractiveness people differ in a way that:
<br />
a) more attractive people are also more intelligent
<br />
b) they do not differ at all
<br />
c) some are more, other less attractive
<br />
d) everybody has an attractive feature
<br />
e) they differ a lot
<br />
f) it is hard to compare
<br />
Assessment: c) some are prettier than others (0), d) and b) underrate beauty (-2, -4), e) and a) overrate (2, 4), f) avoids to judge (*)
<br />
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQEyNueiV1ZiE20bHC7rMKuj4ZKT-p1s7BK8dCp8T0BaXdK_5LOkz_aThRXs4aKcj64XOaICDomIKGaQrefB10D0ZA4urN0SOrhixlq4Kg61ln9JO4yQCn6UyP4EdyWx2eus2hL3uEOIc/s1600/QUJ2w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQEyNueiV1ZiE20bHC7rMKuj4ZKT-p1s7BK8dCp8T0BaXdK_5LOkz_aThRXs4aKcj64XOaICDomIKGaQrefB10D0ZA4urN0SOrhixlq4Kg61ln9JO4yQCn6UyP4EdyWx2eus2hL3uEOIc/s1600/QUJ2w.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
Being a mathematical genius:
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
a) has a detrimental effect
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
b) does not need to have any detrimental effect
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
c) has positive influence on the whole personality
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
d) is accompanied by mental disorders
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
e) it is difficult to assess its influence on a human being
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
f) leads to a better adaptability
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
Assessment: b) unbiased in all cases (=0), a) and d) underrate genius (-2,-4), f) and c) overrate (2, 4), e) evasion (*).
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjon_hAQu7_A-XdjQyk7trhV3TRF9wI7lbSOnG0IX9UhjhTDj2uYTEeVPwzd0L_eWOsK3pSTq400dRizWKiSqtxUl5ZPg0vSiYQ5OFGKttlvvSu1mmdrlRnpuHkgxkLu6YBZATzIl2tG9Q/s1600/QUJ1w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjon_hAQu7_A-XdjQyk7trhV3TRF9wI7lbSOnG0IX9UhjhTDj2uYTEeVPwzd0L_eWOsK3pSTq400dRizWKiSqtxUl5ZPg0vSiYQ5OFGKttlvvSu1mmdrlRnpuHkgxkLu6YBZATzIl2tG9Q/s1600/QUJ1w.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
A minority living in a state:
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
a) has its own specifics
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
b) is more peculiar than majority
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
c) is less adaptable than majority
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
d) is more tolerant than majority
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
e) is not comparable with majority
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
f) is more provocative
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
Assessment: Minorities have own specifics (language), but a minority person does not need to be worse or better than a majority person.
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm4gSVx4Tc_cu7lTfw2T7YDGHotnuuzjD5bqKZ4xrmpGSy8X8Y_pqc4WV1sjvPimPunwo2UZUPZJacoyB-3jaWP17trEzBJfJdQvlSUayvByT2jRby3OV-oq1-yr-65rabCkELQdIdz_M/s1600/QUJ3w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm4gSVx4Tc_cu7lTfw2T7YDGHotnuuzjD5bqKZ4xrmpGSy8X8Y_pqc4WV1sjvPimPunwo2UZUPZJacoyB-3jaWP17trEzBJfJdQvlSUayvByT2jRby3OV-oq1-yr-65rabCkELQdIdz_M/s1600/QUJ3w.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
Extinct plants:
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
a) were more important than today’s plants
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
b) were useless
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
c) disappeared because of various causes
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
d) had the same value as alive plants
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
e) were not able to survive
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
f) were much more useful than present plants
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
Assessment: Survival depends on environment, if it is different some existing plants would not survived and some extinct ones would.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7greG-7T55v8HFiJlFZyg8cZ5rY3TeRibwiETyyMj31EnULEN_LQ4PC3h8FVQfm01IexQ67itN9QKG_-jlrLjnHaadODXLer1aME6Fc9ad-Qbia0PN8zravkH5CY7qzxYVGwZFNOfUio/s1600/QUJ4w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7greG-7T55v8HFiJlFZyg8cZ5rY3TeRibwiETyyMj31EnULEN_LQ4PC3h8FVQfm01IexQ67itN9QKG_-jlrLjnHaadODXLer1aME6Fc9ad-Qbia0PN8zravkH5CY7qzxYVGwZFNOfUio/s1600/QUJ4w.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div style="padding-top: 15px; text-align: center;">
Overall assessment</div>
Prejudices = Σ absolute values, Tolerance = Σ - / + values, Indifference =Σ evasions<br />
Over 500 tested people were rather slightly hostile than tolerant, less biased toward external signs (sex, minority) than excellence (talent, beauty).
Comparing with the results of intelligence tests, I confirmed intelligence statistically reduces prejudices.
I found 4 symptoms: (1) unreal discernment (= too many prejudices), (2) submission (= high tolerance), (3) hostility (= low tolerance),
and (4) indifference (= many evasions). E.g. people in psychotherapy were more biased and submissive.
Or computer programmers were a bit more hostile (maybe because of their increasing importance).
I found some other correlations, e.g. students of theology showed a similar pattern as people in psychotherapy,
which could indicate a psychotherapeutic effect of religion. Or students from Yugoslavia having an experience with
a war at that time, had above average variance, i.e: some had too many prejudices with respect to their intelligence.
It could be interpreted as a result of trauma from the war - lack of opportunities pushing intelligence to prejudices (with sophisticated justifications).
<br />
During testing I also asked people to assess their own sociability by {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2} in comparison with others.
Overall sociability (summing all values) should be 0, but it was 0.5: people tend to think they are above-average.
It documents 'Are we all above average?' phenomenon: people overrate their sociability (or other qualities) for the sake of their self-image to look better.
Not surprisingly, this overrating correlates with amount of prejudices and intelligence.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1Sk7t8k2wO2S9MUA6LQdhyiuyHtZYQFPI_j0ml1StzDLFXftWESnvE0wptt4Le85RNh5VQxsHAEGPJSyqkn37ZFyG6ZV8mfXJuDi2ETqhQY97h9vmoB_jzsEoq_QWsEZko9P0PmyLv7g/s1600/QUJ5w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1Sk7t8k2wO2S9MUA6LQdhyiuyHtZYQFPI_j0ml1StzDLFXftWESnvE0wptt4Le85RNh5VQxsHAEGPJSyqkn37ZFyG6ZV8mfXJuDi2ETqhQY97h9vmoB_jzsEoq_QWsEZko9P0PmyLv7g/s1600/QUJ5w.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div id="bias" style="padding-top: 5px; text-align: center;">
<b>Bias of Classic IQ method</b></div>
Intelligence identifies repeated signs: logic. Classic IQ tests exclude rarer logic, and tests of creativity assess associations without logic. Synthesis of both methods betters reliability.
Graduate Record Examinations test (1994) has this task:
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrPGwzfSeikR4yMP4PPvGU1Kj-tO3GnG-1Hhczlki-Wv5KXA5S8NW07xhWinlKa2mP63ldY1MxqiyjtUM1M3cdtBCgVpC-LTWpQH5hAcEfO4tGfWZfHyK3qSvEocn0DTBSEV8iV4s_sFM/s1600/IQ1w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrPGwzfSeikR4yMP4PPvGU1Kj-tO3GnG-1Hhczlki-Wv5KXA5S8NW07xhWinlKa2mP63ldY1MxqiyjtUM1M3cdtBCgVpC-LTWpQH5hAcEfO4tGfWZfHyK3qSvEocn0DTBSEV8iV4s_sFM/s1600/IQ1w.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
High intelligence finds more options, leading to uncertainty, which one is right.
GRE test as other IQ method, reflects intelligence, but its construction is biased.
My research (1999) confirmed this BIAS of the classic IQ test.
I asked 600 people to invent (not solve) analogies: life : death = laugh : cry
for: fire : .......... = darkness : ...........
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
There were 2 kinds of inventions:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPn9mKs5OS1_HN8vlICiHbDlx5yfq7ExXVahEFlATHlgfv5prSSVd-uR9J74HAQs0Uun6emegA_qHI3-zMLd3m67bZfXk0hGqbSBIWng8V3M5W2w7bUPftFN_CQR1kR79GNuLd9RN2WIA/s1600/IQ2w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPn9mKs5OS1_HN8vlICiHbDlx5yfq7ExXVahEFlATHlgfv5prSSVd-uR9J74HAQs0Uun6emegA_qHI3-zMLd3m67bZfXk0hGqbSBIWng8V3M5W2w7bUPftFN_CQR1kR79GNuLd9RN2WIA/s1600/IQ2w.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglXPerJu8GAjTPF-3lF2OkRgePceoah8BQsfS9F_RG0qNA2NLlKAddrgECJlzypOoqcNelp5lMJvEAbhV8_V1jw4tAoOskuNPQk8Jfb3uyO3RyPQQRMgn6r_h5__Tr2nOZnHyZZebqDLc/s1600/IQ3w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglXPerJu8GAjTPF-3lF2OkRgePceoah8BQsfS9F_RG0qNA2NLlKAddrgECJlzypOoqcNelp5lMJvEAbhV8_V1jw4tAoOskuNPQk8Jfb3uyO3RyPQQRMgn6r_h5__Tr2nOZnHyZZebqDLc/s1600/IQ3w.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
All invented an analogy with a meaning. Only 5% invented a formal analogy, and they achieved above average intelligence: people discovering original logic are on average more intelligent.
The less frequent sign discovered, the higher intelligence: IQ methods excluding rare signs, can’t reliably assess high intellect.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7H8bit441hqO2CkHp7GHtDIouBOTMWtxcqWkJwiid_3BjpVjegtK1fSCHUpszqWGAZOPThb8UgEByYA0kiqWWjwPSqmffw4RCKMxvJBvFmeOO0jgCZ298WUv_pygv5S7X7X10Wa1vTNc/s1600/IQ4w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7H8bit441hqO2CkHp7GHtDIouBOTMWtxcqWkJwiid_3BjpVjegtK1fSCHUpszqWGAZOPThb8UgEByYA0kiqWWjwPSqmffw4RCKMxvJBvFmeOO0jgCZ298WUv_pygv5S7X7X10Wa1vTNc/s1600/IQ4w.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div id="Expectation" style="text-align: center;">
<b>Expectation and cognition</b></div>
Psychology, sociology, economics assume conventional logic (average intelligence) in their models. In economics, bounded rationality imposes cognitive limits,
but doesn't differentiate between levels of intelligence. Also asymmetries focus on information, rather than differences in intelligence.
Test of Expectations links intelligence and expectations (guess of other guess) to show unreliability of average intelligence assumption.
I asked tested persons to fill four patterns with 0-16 circles in 2 ways:
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp2bXvkxVCE3IbXQTF-Bphcg4f02O8CTRWa-jvLXJfG2mABpuUAidtGCoW4dwF8NhS0pOC3hkm91tmII57JbfkAp-Fe83eVdXNpHjYEHdHnZM05dytRiSFlCrmcCDUeY7crDNhYhzfv4k/s1600/Ex0w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp2bXvkxVCE3IbXQTF-Bphcg4f02O8CTRWa-jvLXJfG2mABpuUAidtGCoW4dwF8NhS0pOC3hkm91tmII57JbfkAp-Fe83eVdXNpHjYEHdHnZM05dytRiSFlCrmcCDUeY7crDNhYhzfv4k/s640/Ex0w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br />
The best strategy of Task A, is the worst of Task B, and vice-verse.
For Task A, the optimal strategy is to fill 8 circles randomly having the most different options.
The random 8 filled circles, really occurred with the higher intelligence.
The breaking rules' strategies: 'cheating' (e.g. adding something extra or semi-fill circle), or 'meaning' (e.g. drawing a face),
also occurred with higher intelligence.
But they are less optimal than 8 random circles. Although cheating can easily lead to a unique shape,
'incentive to cheat' is already less unique (9% cases of cheating).
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjwkuhM7lQmH8gdZW5aIAnljZITmZOq69UwAIajUEV9dvoRKzwpgsmFbELnxsOZXqo0WAWRxLGAxCRzyEcM3pFoC7M1kDsW9_HmTewwKuZgzr5EFdiQMp-NdJUSxnF1z9lglqFLZpns0c/s1600/Ex1w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="576" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjwkuhM7lQmH8gdZW5aIAnljZITmZOq69UwAIajUEV9dvoRKzwpgsmFbELnxsOZXqo0WAWRxLGAxCRzyEcM3pFoC7M1kDsW9_HmTewwKuZgzr5EFdiQMp-NdJUSxnF1z9lglqFLZpns0c/s640/Ex1w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br />
Task B, the most repeated
patterns occur with the average intelligence, the optimal strategy (0 or 16 circles)
correlate with higher intelligence, but was chosen by merely 4% or 2%. So
average intelligence leads to better estimate than higher intelligence. On the
other hand, the worst strategy (asymmetry) occur with low intelligence. So the
most popular choices are not optimal but at least partially rational
(aware that asymmetry is wrong leading to too many different outcomes).
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGatJ0HGrmAjIWHjs-Oa6ctaCsjZu9xIrPG1eQ8MNiWvS3H2ow5bH9vb-KqmXhCdNCJQ8RoGbAoF1ziQWjUiamCExh_xnJMUByOhUXJkOVhwzLrE3t1q0D9mcnttiYFMr5UTUJ-4fmPr4/s1600/Ex2w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="576" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGatJ0HGrmAjIWHjs-Oa6ctaCsjZu9xIrPG1eQ8MNiWvS3H2ow5bH9vb-KqmXhCdNCJQ8RoGbAoF1ziQWjUiamCExh_xnJMUByOhUXJkOVhwzLrE3t1q0D9mcnttiYFMr5UTUJ-4fmPr4/s640/Ex2w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The higher intelligence, the more optimal objective choice, which paradoxically does not need to be 'right' - if its optimality
exceeds average intelligence. Theoretically infinity intelligence adjusts to majority's guess... But it can't always recognize the majority's non-optimal choice,
as there is no objective criterion.
Non-optimal collective choices could shed some light on inefficiency in societies: crises, wars, as kind of 'collective neurosis' or 'collective psychopathy',
outvoting optimal choices because of misunderstanding, or intention to exclude clever (as too efficient competitors).
I found other correlations too. E.g. the higher intelligence, the more independence of intro example (and of using 4 circles patterns).
Various instructions (guess how less / more smart would guess other's guess, etc..) could be used in testing too to differentiate the results.
<br />
Classic prisoner's dilemma is also 'guess other guess' task, requiring to guess what other would do, to make optimal decision.
If both prisoners (A, B) betray each other they get 2 years, if both are silent they get 1 year. If A betrays and B is silent, A is free, B get 3 years (and vice-verse).
The assumption is that game is finite (does not repeat), and no external punishment / reward is possible.
The rational result is: they betray, even though the best outcome for both would be if both are silent.
We can look at the problem from different intelligence level. If both are 'dumb', they may naively guess the other would be silent, so they would be silent too.
That's why lower intelligence, not able to calculate 'optimal guess', may theoretically lead to more optimal solution, in some special cases.
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
<b>Association Tests: classification problem</b></div>
<div style="float: left;">
Galton (1822-1911) used word-associations to assess mental qualities. Rorschach (1921) reveals unconscious characteristics and emotions associated (=projected) to the inkblots. Tests of creativity assess a number of distinct associations (=flexibility), their frequencies (=originality), how detailed they are (=elaboration). The lie detector measures overreactions (delay, changed physiology) of associations to words related to crime. The right answer in IQ tests is a correct association (out of all other associations). Rorschach's 'Oligophrenic detail' shows children or mentally handicapped more often interpret ink-boat as a part of something (human, animal).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div style="float: left; width: 70%;">
Analysis of associations requires other criteria (accuracy, respond time) to have meaningful interpretation. Otherwise they have diverging interpretations.
Torrance's figural test (1957) to finish Figure 1 as nobody would do:
</div>
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY-CpWFW_SGAzHoefsY7xs-_jOAgeCkTsanr7PJU0Kbpp2bKVC_PaZVJ_J5_YtuMl23IfSd6FwNAp9aJk148gOrk6z2R5JCBvt6LVbDqrGeQJ9xfVy34Cpc0TuEVpiw9hlu1B-uxhbpC4/s1600/CR1w.jpg" style="float: right;" />
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: left; font-size: 14px; width: 80%;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<div>
<div style="float: left; width: 60%;">
Boat is one of the least original responses, while submarine is relatively original. Pictured submarine has the same hull of 5 circles.
Is a submarine same, half same, or entirely different, as a boat? It shows a problem to classify associations, without logical context.
Quantitative analyses of associations or variables (factor analysis, econometrics) create pseudo-knowledge or 'reveal' something trivial, evident already before.
Qualitative methods using associations to confirm concepts, theories (e.g. psychoanalysis) create only one of many views, without warranty that the constructed view
is right (or to what extent it is right).
I made Test of Abstract pictures of ambiguous contexts, to reveal perception of society.
I use category like: subjects, objects, cooperation, entropy, nature, mechanism, activity, abstraction etc, to explore their ratios (supposed to be 1).
Significant deviations from the supposed ratios could indicate symptoms e.g. subjects / objects < 1 (= social deficit).
I found some similarities when artists, programmers, theologians overused entropy (disagreement, explosion...),
or chess composers overused cooperation (friendship, communication). There were some differences by gender: males' associated more technical objects,
than women - that is however trivial.
I faced the same problem with classification, and multiple interpretations impossible to overcome by quantity of collected data.
The other criterion - sorting the associations, is necessary to get valid interpretations.
</div>
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCca8yNsn1ZJlS_EmN0vq7W3bx6IR0V6GXgUR8afgVTybRVlO0N8sLf-BxiTx4lDC5NY8KA5RtbVDxg8_2W1NpEfcHqICgocw6yN3Qo6i71v7d3NdmOCrkJp44JdlacjoV4lRYc7ASUPA/s1600/CR2w.jpg" style="float: right;" />
</div>
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMFyMwfRvY14p735kALPXoZwmymFD3PVRrlydIyt3npFXaNeDrQTeuu7RIJCNKbxPKhMC2gUCi8h7dNsm6fpSGyo2ksVXzI8pbuDf3FJYLRiAt4sQ3kj072cVSJ5MHXLx-V14PEm__apg/s1600/CR3w.jpg" />
<br />
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Intelligence and intricacy: Thinking</b></div>
Intelligence links unique units of reality to logical series, e.g: 1, 2, 3... defined by the same change +1: 1, 2, 3, 4, or other justifications. Series 1, 2, 3, 4 can result from:<br />
a) y = x, returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 <br />
b) y = x<sup>4</sup> - 10x<sup>3</sup> + 35x² - 49x + 24, returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 29<br />
c) other logic.<br />
Different justifications can return, for some parameters, same results: 1, 2, 3, 4, but then the results diverge (5 versus 29). Classic IQ method based on 1 correct answer excludes rarer justifications.
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uy77jFQX39tc0bsj4IE_jlwQ-fg_Hh8DJ58fRmyaGchARi3Ate7_wpkMvM5gIQ-Zf0ICf9OpdteAM_MpfpN3h4G1qbPsXPTuW4i91y-48lYDkQ_n9EStgE5bPlSPkFJaW8dBM0hbics/s1600/Justifications.Miro.Brada.1998.gif" width="500" /></div>
The identity doesn't exist: 'p' differs from next 'p' by its position, time: p != p (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei.2C_.22everything_flows.22" target="_blank">Heraclitus Panta rhei 525-475 BCE</a>). If 1/a is probability of occurrence of 'p', probability of next 'p' is 1/a². Like likelihood to throw 6 with dice is 1/6, to throw 6 again is 1/36. Intelligence linking 'identical' changes to logical series, can be defined by probability: the lower probability of logical series per unit of time in given environment, the higher intelligence.
The intelligence is inverted probability of logical series having discrete intricacies (combined logics): 1, 2, 3, ...
<br />
'Intricacy 1' has 1 logic e.g: adding, 'intricacy 2' combines 2 logics e.g. adding & rotating, 'intricacy 3' e.g. adding & rotating & sum, etc. The intelligence (as inverted probability) of series with 'intricacy 1' = 1, 'intricacy 2' = 2 * 2, 'intricacy 3' = 3 * 3, etc.
So intelligence of every series = intricacy <sup>2</sup>, and thinking is a sum of every intricacy <sup>2</sup> of all series per unit of time.
At glance thinking look as a linear process. In fact all elements building a logic, are linked exponentially - through multiplication of their probabilities.
In general, assumptions of linearity - e.g. economic growth or political ideologies, don't capture the underlying dynamics (multiplication of probabilities),
which may result to unexpected outcomes (e.g. collapse of Roman Empire, Soviet Union...).
<br />
<div id="pensar" style="text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguJ6XlZoOUeKK9mWLitS6ZlEAHHbTRn6P-CEs9wRYXmeyjjxp2PwmspnoomM4prj4Xbm_k8aw66TA1_zapb_62jANcIi07bKfBvwvSXCzEBTBzeyGTcR5_2dw4cNoSWKnXM5svTliLIxk/s1600/Pensar.Miro.Brada.gif" />
</div>
<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Test of Intelligence and Creativity</b> (TIC)</div>
In 1996 I developed TIC to asses intelligence, flexibility, originality from drawn logical series on printed patterns, which was a synthesis of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thinking" target="_blank">Torrance Test of Creativity</a> (1984) and IQ tests like
<a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Amthauer" target="_blank">Amthauer</a> (1953), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices" target="_blank">Raven</a> (1936), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale" target="_blank">Wechsler</a> (1955).
TIC and theory of intelligence was my Master thesis in 1998 highly appreciated by <a href="http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondrej_Kond%C3%A1%C5%A1" target="_blank">O. Kondáš </a>- expert in clinic psychology.
TIC consists of 4 different patterns, and every pattern repeated 4 times in one
row. Every row of the same pattern repeats 4 times, so there are 16 rows, where tested persons can create logical series. Instruction is 'draw a logical series on 4 printed patterns':<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIakVhhywjoG97rKdiNLsxyzAvh6eELAi8wiO2_ECK3e3Bu9x9tDlAnYHSXxuNCJNwFy54cH-twwkxtU7zkC4_4eAjs-_3LkisbfRbiV1kpcakXlvffE7xIlzmpVHYIXruKDXDm_az8Qw/s1600/TIC1w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIakVhhywjoG97rKdiNLsxyzAvh6eELAi8wiO2_ECK3e3Bu9x9tDlAnYHSXxuNCJNwFy54cH-twwkxtU7zkC4_4eAjs-_3LkisbfRbiV1kpcakXlvffE7xIlzmpVHYIXruKDXDm_az8Qw/s640/TIC1w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
To find solution (classic IQ test) is much easier than creating logic. It requires certain intelligence, and so some created nothing (it does not mean 0 IQ).
Before starting the test, I showed 2 examples: adding and alternation, with practice pattern, to explain what tested person should do.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSrRzaspNkS4xbeNMmfu_6BVqrUWzcE-uOGWRZ20yeuDa682dTky_bWEUkkVz19l2gs6vbOmebcKIrE3awbzhO8D-Ym1HH3kQ-NMASt2ACpoKO-0qN28-rEg19Ahr5Z7m27ylLwluM5I4/s1600/TIC0w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSrRzaspNkS4xbeNMmfu_6BVqrUWzcE-uOGWRZ20yeuDa682dTky_bWEUkkVz19l2gs6vbOmebcKIrE3awbzhO8D-Ym1HH3kQ-NMASt2ACpoKO-0qN28-rEg19Ahr5Z7m27ylLwluM5I4/s640/TIC0w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Testing 600 people, I found 24 types of logic - some were combined.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6CO7j2bQlp0tIcpO28arHSHrZ2znvfMDO5V2WfM_u_v_OSYukR1jZGmdHyg8ZwT0isWM_OAnEm2S5aDctBGzGiwb9hV6FPgyQHHzNIo27Y9p3g9kMSzNgwmETIkUhEem0B6-JwQbS558/s1600/TIC2w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6CO7j2bQlp0tIcpO28arHSHrZ2znvfMDO5V2WfM_u_v_OSYukR1jZGmdHyg8ZwT0isWM_OAnEm2S5aDctBGzGiwb9hV6FPgyQHHzNIo27Y9p3g9kMSzNgwmETIkUhEem0B6-JwQbS558/s640/TIC2w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Creation of logic always enables to add new logic to series to increase its intricacy. E.g. subtraction of a polygon can be enriched by weakening colour (it is very original logic), and diminishing size.
Alternating (empty, full) triangle can enrich adding and rotating triangle, plus summing the first 3 patterns to the 4, adds 'sum' logic.
Then the triangle could be moving, diminishing etc... Theoretically infinity logics may be mutally combined. The results of TIC allows higher differences
than classic IQ tests. In my research the highest score (of one musicologist) corrensponded to 250 IQ, while some achieved 0 (unable to produce any logic).
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg48XlqE9bWWHCJGUfrhdxLzEDCAThG8KMXFJJ83K5mTS-ls02EkYyA056caFb0SSDwh6cF6m7zP4J7H0L1w9cNgVZkwOAKZZ5JCowYrcde5Y41BLGL3FPaJpoML9leDJUu8rAaSvJ7H9U/s1600/TIC3w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg48XlqE9bWWHCJGUfrhdxLzEDCAThG8KMXFJJ83K5mTS-ls02EkYyA056caFb0SSDwh6cF6m7zP4J7H0L1w9cNgVZkwOAKZZ5JCowYrcde5Y41BLGL3FPaJpoML9leDJUu8rAaSvJ7H9U/s640/TIC3w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Intelligence (of series) is intricacy², which was explained before, and should be now clearer from examples of logical series.
Total intelligence is sum of intelligence of all N logical series in given time:<br />
<br />
Intelligence = Σ<sub>i</sub><sup>N</sup> intricacy<sub>i</sub><sup>2</sup><br />
Flexibility = Σ<sub>i</sub><sup>N</sup> different logic<sub>i</sub><br />
Originality is inverted probability of logic, if probability of rotating is 1/a<sub>r</sub> , its originality is a<sub>r</sub>.
Probabilities of intricate series are multiplied, originality of rotating & adding = a<sub>r</sub> * a<sub>a</sub>.<br />
Originality = Σ<sub>i</sub><sup>N</sup><sub> </sub>O<sub>i</sub><br />
where originality of series O<sub>i</sub> = Π<sub>x</sub><sup>intricacy</sup><sub> </sub><sub> </sub>a<sub>x</sub>, where a<sub>x </sub>is inverted probability of logic x<br />
Environment influences originality - logic original for most people, can be banal for a special group, e.g. technicians overuse 'decomposing',
because in technical fields the problems are broken down to be resolved like integration by parts: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann%E2%80%93Stieltjes_integral" target="_blank">Riemann–Stieltjes integral</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBSRhg4fASnZsDsoG9cRR9cJeWRVbz6Vwt_6rci3ZsgnQhdP7j4-rcFoeOrSbRKtIRWmUpJSphqOqKAoDPyWuDFJX7aWNv7SOMBUau4f24l6p1h0RE6hJrMQPazrDozhDxk0rNGibrgWI/s1600/TIC4w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBSRhg4fASnZsDsoG9cRR9cJeWRVbz6Vwt_6rci3ZsgnQhdP7j4-rcFoeOrSbRKtIRWmUpJSphqOqKAoDPyWuDFJX7aWNv7SOMBUau4f24l6p1h0RE6hJrMQPazrDozhDxk0rNGibrgWI/s640/TIC4w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
From the above definitions it is clear that intelligence, originality, creativity are statistically correlated.
Together with logic, there were sometimes various effects: drawing meanings e.g. rotating umbrella, moving square bouncing or reappearing, etc.
These effects increase intricacy, flexibility, originality, so each one has 0.5 point.
Crucial is to classify the intention, which is not always easy, because logic can be drawn imperfectly, mistaken, or psychologist can see non-existing intention.
Also interpretation may be ambiguous e.g. alternating left / right may be rotation of 180. Or are rotations CW, CCW, 45, 90 equivalent?
Assessment could be more elaborated e.g. people could explain their logic to better understand their intention.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLNv15enWswiZQ5HWnLADaS9CY1HA53jSvtauuWChvVrh7P7B5CZ0F6Wl984impK0wf1Ylh8XEFCpsBEpiaM1MZ4S1b7AVJs80YNIM6H_fMipbm9rUKZknEzm3CkCVY7j4y9g4U_ifNUA/s1600/TIC5w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLNv15enWswiZQ5HWnLADaS9CY1HA53jSvtauuWChvVrh7P7B5CZ0F6Wl984impK0wf1Ylh8XEFCpsBEpiaM1MZ4S1b7AVJs80YNIM6H_fMipbm9rUKZknEzm3CkCVY7j4y9g4U_ifNUA/s640/TIC5w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Theoretically, Rotating & Rotating should have smaller originality a<sub>r</sub> * a<sub>r</sub>, than e.g. Rotating & Summing because Summing is rarer than Rotating.
Unlike machines, for humans repeating the same logic in one series is less likely i.e. Rotating & Rotating has higher originality than a<sub>r</sub> * a<sub>r</sub>
So the probability of the combined series does not need to be exactly same as expected.
Humans don't tend to combine same logic e.g. adding & adding & adding & adding.
The exception is paranoia, or psychosis (they spy me, and I know they spy me, and they know that I know...).
New concept of intelligence can so explain the psychosis, as one series of combined same logic, absorbing the whole intelligence.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-top: 10px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbL3KYBoiukUs90Qnq4efo88Ag-ymZ1FbZn9RABDXGvRzmOIY4biKBkorRo783MwGUp_Nm29VbEZIeSYWX5UL5dKZ8yxY69sGRt4WXL18Yr51eCFv6DcHbHEY64eVu7C00nJFOUt9GiiI/s1600/TIC6w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbL3KYBoiukUs90Qnq4efo88Ag-ymZ1FbZn9RABDXGvRzmOIY4biKBkorRo783MwGUp_Nm29VbEZIeSYWX5UL5dKZ8yxY69sGRt4WXL18Yr51eCFv6DcHbHEY64eVu7C00nJFOUt9GiiI/s640/TIC6w.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Psychosis</b></div>
Personality is determined by certain level of intelligence a<sup>2</sup> distributed in various logical series, with core self-identity series.
<br />
Psychoses are of 2 types: a) schizophrenia with 1 logic, b) bipolar disorders (manic-depression) with 2 logics (bipolar can be understood as 'weak' psychosis).
<br />
Example of 1 logic in schizophrenia is: they know 'what I know', but I know that 'they know 'what I know'', but they know that 'I know that 'they know 'what I know'''... etc
It can continue infinitely till absorbing the whole intelligence, capturing the 'self-identity'.
The higher intelligence, the more repetition (higher intricacy) of the same logic.
For personality with intelligence a<sup>2</sup>, the intricacy of one logic is 'a'.
For 2 logics in manic-depression, one logic's intricacy is: 'a/√2' (because (a/√2)<sup>2</sup> + (a/√2)<sup>2</sup> = a<sup>2</sup>)
<br />
<br />
Let's assume each number of a dice represents one logic (opportunity), so there are 6 logics: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Then intelligence is a number of throws M: the higher intelligence, the more throws (M).
<br />
<br />
Possible personalities = N<sup>M</sup>, where N = number of opportunities, and M is intelligence, in our example it is: 6<sup>M</sup>
<br />
Possible Schizophrenia(s) = N, in our example it is: 6
<br />
Possible bipolar disorders = N * (N-1) / 2, in our example it is: 15
<br />
<br />
While number of personalities exponentially raises with M (intelligence), for 6 logics there are still just 6 possible schizophrenias, and 15 possible bipolars.
So:
<br />
The higher intelligence, the lower probability of psychosis and bipolars - probability decreases geometrically.
<br />
The more opportunities, the lower probability of psychosis and bipolars - probability decreases arithmetically.
<br />
The more opportunities, the higher ratio of bipolars to schizophrenia - the ratio increases arithmetically.
<br />
<br />
To minimize a chance of psychosis, intelligence is more important than opportunities, but at least some opportunities are necessary (extreme
situations may trigger psychosis regardless of intelligence, as one logic always results in a repetition of the same: psychosis).
The importance of intelligence <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287555.php" target="_blank">was documented by many studies, e.g
here is a study from The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2015, by Dr. Kendler.</a>
<br />
Ratio of bipolar to schizophrenia is (N - 1) / 2, does not depend on intelligence.
According to <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs396/en/" target="_blank">WHO</a>,
there are 21 millions of schizophrenia, and 60 millions of bipolar disorders.
Ratio of bipolar disorders to schizophrenia (N - 1) / 2 suggests: the more developed societies (more opportunities),
the higher ratio of bipolar to schizophrenia. E.g. some studies show that
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/07/US.highest.bipolar.rates/" target="_blank">bipolar disorders in USA is 4.4%, while in India only 0.1%</a>.
And according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_schizophrenia" target="_blank">WHO's 2000 statistics, there are 1.45 times higher rate of schizophrenia in India than USA</a>.
The environment (opportunities) influences the number of psychoses / bipolar disorders, as well as their ratio.
So genetics can't explain everything.
<br />
<br />
The reality is more complex than a dice, with possible heterogeneity in logics (e.g. some logics cannot be for some reason always combined),
and the accessibility of logics may differ by time.
However the formula for possible distributions (personalities) across logics (opportunities) in dependence on intelligence, remains true,
which opens a possibility to study Personality mathematically.
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br />
<b>Special tasks and levels of intelligence</b></div>
<div style="width: 100%;">
<div style="float: left; width: 49%;">
Too high intelligence can lead to irrational choice.
Some temptations require certain intelligence to be noticed, people below it are protected.
To discover that a temptation is wrong may require higher intelligence.
People between these 2 intelligence's levels are trapped...
E.g. gambling is irrational, as expected gain is smaller than fee to play (and it costs time too).
It is enough to notice the owners of lotteries make money, not gamblers.
They are smart enough to gamble, but not smart enough to understand its irrationality.
Preferences to take risk don't explain gambling, because there are many other even riskier activities
e.g. extreme sports. Opportunities matter too: their lack makes more intelligent people to gamble.
The upper level of intelligence for gambling (or other irrational choice),
moves with a number of opportunities.
<br />
<br />
An article with a special chess problem (other kind of problems could be constructed too)
published in Japanese Journal Problem Paradise, experimentally confirms a higher intelligence
can lead to a wrong solution.
</div>
<img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4OvqutdXRQMwLSs4q_JHZtt5ckhZmf3gQxWyMKamwpkN4Z2vgwXm54upwBUTStQ-vYkGbmNvqRSFQQMCRllczMceG_XMoGGvEpIQiY8G1xlT1hVAOdPgzgCwvWB5_XR8pn1cz3OMsnX4/s320/Gambling.jpg" style="float: right; margin-top: 70px;" />
</div>
<div id="japan" style="clear: both; float: left; text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<br />
<br />
<b>Intelligence and Special Problems</b>
<img border="0" src="https://www.4prop.com/JSON/miro/Miro.Brada_IntelligenceAndSpecialProblems.png" width="1000" />
<br>Personality model algorithm used to create self-linked site: <a href="https://www.each.co.uk/w/UK.htm">https://www.each.co.uk/w/UK.htm</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-22140125749056451532014-09-09T16:24:00.000-07:002016-11-21T02:59:54.647-08:00The Science is a subset of the Art<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="color: #002255;">
<div style="float: left; margin-top: -15px;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aj00hsD0iKns2F9emZQp17DdbZ-ruCQD__v_mV5hvFsOIb1GuJFXkzHIH8ki7yOqqSSiaCfki-FONNMPI-OCqAtUdfLp5VEEwed9qmJegzF3P3pCORum3nGkaky9z28POGW1pzO1kb4/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" width="55" /></a></div>
I talked with the prominent chemist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%C3%ADn_Hol%C3%BD" target="_blank">Antonín Holý</a> <span style="font-size: x-small;">1936-2012</span>, author of substances to treat hepatitis, HIV, about the science in its relation to the art, society. Trying to show that science is inseparable from art, and its division reflects the power structure of society. Except interview I explain unifying logic of realities, and Edison's economics that I developed in 1999.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255; float: right;">
The interview was published in 2004 in <a href="http://blisty.cz/art/21096.html" target="_blank">blisty.cz</a> and Národná Obroda</div>
<div style="float: right;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRACAI-3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRACAI-3.pdf" target="_blank">the article is also on the philpapers</a></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #002255; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMD1XQI4Rmr0hFrYdqJitMWOUvXStZX387rWpHFnwCg94VupDYajI3LxOo-BPXPd5Kg1OCRh8EvpqKknROt7cfd76Jjub-KrtXyCgRTA3g5a_bVMpncpruvXWh3gqpuE5CplKd2kMGf44/s1600/Antonin.Holy_Miro.Brada.2014.gif" /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><span style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: right;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><span style="text-align: left;"><i>Antonín Holý</i></span><i>, lab, Fleming square, Prague, October 2004</i></span><span style="color: #002255;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Humans consist of the carbon similar to the silicon. Could we be composed otherwise?</b></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
We are based on water having various states and reacting with only few instances. Thanks to water we exist. Our composition is optimal. The silicon does not have such properties.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Does it happen by evolution as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin" target="_blank">Darwin <span style="font-size: x-small;">1809-82</span></a> said?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
I'm not persuaded about that. Our time is too short for <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/evolution-is-true-if-it-is-untrue.html" target="_blank">evolution</a>. After all Darwin does not answer the origin of life, only transforms it one level further to its transition. And such things are backwardly unverifiable.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>May diseases, killing the weaker, evolutionarily 'improve' gene?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
What that 'improvement' should be? In practice, it would lead to an ideal of a muscular dummy with high ability to reproduce and low IQ, and a female of similar parameters. Cultural human actively disposes of the handicaps by synthesis of experience, analysis, abstraction and generalization to predict and survive. It is matter of survival, not life extension.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Is AIDS, SARS, ebola result of a devastated environment reacting somehow?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
I don't believe in auto-regulative mechanisms, that nature helps itself without us, kind of Pangaea. Sure these problems are partially caused by humans: overpopulation, dirty water, promiscuity, extreme sexual practices, tight contact with animals. Rational people should overcome it.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Is society enough rational?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
From its behavior it is clearly irrational, in fact absolutely stupid. No wonder, with such proportion of individuals - dummies. If it really needs what is called 'politicians' or 'celebrities', its inability and stupidity just proves.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Could poverty, dirt induce, by virus mutation, a new malady?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
...kind of hybrid infection? The threat rather is that infection rapidly spreads by insects or directly among people. Global warming can establish it in our latitudes <span style="font-size: x-small;">Czech Republic</span>, where you can get from the hot countries by plane within hours. It should be monitored.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>What do you think of euthanasia?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
It is a question of ethics whether and when to switch off devices keeping experimentally life signs of in fact already dead patient. I definitely reject euthanasia, as history shows the abuse of all what could be abused. Like an uneducated person would repair a complex space ship. We can unintentionally cause huge damages, or deliberately abuse new knowledge. It is a play with fire without water to extinguish.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>It is related to cloning...</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
...we and animals are enough. I can imagine just one result: mass production of army of robots in a brainwashed human body reacting to electronic orders of the 'Centre'.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Will computer, decoding genetic codes <span style="font-size: x-small;">DNA / RNA,</span> replace chemists?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Computers only hasten unproductive work, but can't replace chemists working with real matter and time, except perhaps quantum chemistry, e.g. molecular modelling, with vast computations. Nevertheless humans must always assess the reality of the result. By the way it was <a href="http://www.chem.yale.edu/faculty/soll.html" target="_blank">Dieter Söll</a> who resolved <span style="font-size: x-small;">1964</span> a genetic code, synthesizing all 64 trinucleotides. Only then computers determined series of nucleotides. Söll was too young to get Nobel prize.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>What are the greatest discoveries in Chemistry?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Chemistry is a whole system of sciences. Modern chemistry stands on discoveries of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-Laurent_de_Lavoisier" target="_blank">Lavoisier <span style="font-size: x-small;">1743-94</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev" target="_blank">Mendeleev <span style="font-size: x-small;">1834-1907</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle" target="_blank">Boyle <span style="font-size: x-small;">1627-91</span></a>, using findings of alchemists that stood on the knowledge acquired and practiced in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming" target="_blank">Fleming <span style="font-size: x-small;">1928</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>noticed vanishing bacteria on mold spots <span style="font-size: x-small;">penicillin</span> </b><b>by chance. </b><b>Is invention accident?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
"Accident" is a statistically inestimable option. Once I met my friend in Paris, with whom I had not been long time, and who was a visitor there too. For that you need to create conditions: you had to make a friend, be at the same place. Only then it could 'randomly' happen to meet at same time and space. And you had to look around yet. Also Fleming had to study growth of bacteria, till he noticed... So discovery is not entirely random, it is a different phenomenon than guessing 5 from 64 numbers. In a medicinal chemistry you are more likely to find something, by limitation of a 'leading structure'. Pharmaceutical companies build 'museums' - a collection of compounds for various purposes. If there is a new aim or method, they often successfully use this capacity. There is a whole department preparing a library of substances - mixture of substances of similar structure.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Scheme of benzene appeared in </b><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekul%C3%A9" target="_blank">Kekulé's <span style="font-size: x-small;">1858</span></a> dream: a snake biting its own tale.</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
I don't have such fantasy. It happens, I solve scientific problems unconsciously too. In such a half-dream a concrete solution sometimes arises, although not always I recall it.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: left; width: 50%;">
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Is idea in science and in art, same?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
They are close. Many scientists have an active attitude to art, but modern style of education excludes it. Like artists experimental scientists are good artisans. Idea is a logical synthesis of thoughts leading to a new quality, knowledge. The idea is first, then an accident can take place.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Is a talent for science and art same?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
There is a parallel. Many artistically oriented people are physicians. There are some though less, among chemists and technicians. In history, there was a broader perspective, today tendency is to specialize. Among arts and sciences are also principal differences. Artists immediately or at least soon may realize their ideas, for scientists it takes years. </div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Some artworks took long time...</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Maybe novels, but sculptor can realize its idea at once. In science it is slower. A difference between art and science is indeed real. Music, singing is not a real thing, although it utilizes real means. </div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Centuries ago your job was unreal too.</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
We always stand on the predecessors. You can't discover all from Pythagoras to nuclear reactions. </div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton" target="_blank">Newton <span style="font-size: x-small;">1642-1727</span></a> defined the basics of physics, when few considered it real.</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
True, but art depends on politics. Science not.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Politics, society indirectly determines scientific subject. High morals would halt spread of HIV.</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Aids is really a consequence of promiscuity, but also depends on hygiene of genitals. There are also convincing studies of positive influence of TBC cure on HIV transmission.</div>
</div>
<div id="aquellos" style="background: #dfd; border-top-left-radius: 50px; color: #006600; float: right; padding: 1px; width: 49%;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJfj0MR4YbM2v7MvWvRRsmOehTMN7McfA03D7Os-DEb5CQdMXKPOkPsouUIf1TA-whldp4Z_DJhlxKML1Yb6aMhtkr4nDivbgK7FFGUHdHdad3ie255RiJgzNGPRfz3iWFHN-h01fwFfE/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" style="float: left;" width="89" /></a><b>Those above</b>, <b>those below</b><br />
Old Greeks <span style="font-size: x-small;">Plato, Aristotle..</span> sought universality. Intelligence <span style="font-size: x-small;">g factor</span> <a href="http://blisty.cz/art/15031.html" target="_blank">correlates across various types</a>. Why we then tend to think artistic and scientific talent differ? Rising knowledge, population (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale" target="_blank">scale effect</a>) explains specialisms, but why to split art and science?<br />
<a href="http://foucaultnews.com/2015/03/05/miro-brada-artform/" target="_blank">Foucault</a>: exclusion of fools in Enlightenment <span style="font-size: x-small;">17th century</span> was to get rid of undesirables, regulate jobless, wages. The split of science and art reduced competences for <b>those below</b> not to challenge <b>those above</b>. Be an expert ONLY in one thing: chemistry <span style="font-size: x-small;">molecular, organic.. </span>music <span style="font-size: x-small;">jazz, pop..</span> law, medicine, bakery..<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Arts_and_Sciences" target="_blank">Rousseau</a>: art and science corrupt morality in favour of <b>those above</b>. The rich backed <i>Renaissance</i>, <i>ballet.., </i>the poor started j<i>azz</i>,<br />
<i>flamenco</i>. Art can be so independent of the power: art for art. Or we can say: 'corrupting art' isn't art that must reflect morals as well as effort <span style="font-size: x-small;">potentially</span> contributing to a strong character.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" target="_blank">Freud</a>: art is a higher form of sublimation transferring sexuality. But motivation in itself can't create art that needs talent. Successful artists don't need to sublime, i.e. other motivation <span style="font-size: x-small;">except sublimation</span> exists. Schopenhauer praised art as an escape from the meaningless world. Nietzsche thought art manifested the will to power. <br />
For Rousseau Nietzsche flattered <b>those above</b> to support him <span style="font-size: x-small;">superhuman as a marketing</span>. For Nietzsche Rousseau misunderstood slavish morality of <b>those below</b>. The reality has various asymmetrical combinations <span style="font-size: x-small;">statistics</span>. Talents occur across social groups incl. poor: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Fitzgerald" target="_blank">Fitzgerald</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman" target="_blank">Whitman</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol" target="_blank">Warhol</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Mucha" target="_blank">Mucha</a>, having a disadvantage in spite of <span style="font-size: x-small;">on average</span> stronger incentive. Some wonder why many great artists were politically leftists: <i>Picasso</i>, <i>Chaplin</i>, <i>Brecht</i>, <i>Hemingway</i>.. The best are statistically less afraid to compete, less motivated to erect barriers <span style="font-size: x-small;">curiosity prevails, market rises</span> tending so to support <span style="font-size: x-small;">at least verbally</span> <b>those below</b>.<br />
<div style="font-size: 10px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_and_Civilization" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Foucault 1926-1984</a> claimed discontinuity is more typical for society than progress being an ideology justifying the upper class<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Arts_and_Sciences" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Rousseau 1712-78</a> criticized modernity, progress, ownership, author of social contract: trade-off between rights and duties<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Freud 1856-1939</a> author of a non-linear model of personality: id-ego-superego, enabling to interpret irrational behavior.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Fitzgerald" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Fitzgerald 1917-96</a> one of the greatest singers, living in poor environment till her success<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Whitman 1819-1892</a> American national poet, using a free verse, struggling for money in his youth<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol" style="font-size: 10px;" target="_blank">Warhol 1928-1987</a> son of indigent Slovak immigrants, most famous pop-artist with one of the most expensive artworks<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Mucha" target="_blank">Mucha 1860-1939</a> Moravian artist once got a chance to make a poster of actress Bernhardt, he became famous in Paris. </div>
</div>
<div style="color: #000066; float: left; padding-top: 10px; padding: 1px; width: 49%;">
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>How would chemist define the matter?</b></div>
<div>
It is unnecessary, basic laws of matter is enough. Chemistry is based on the transition of the matter, knows its limited stability at the molecular level.
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Is there anything new, or synthesis with other field is inevitable?</b><br />
New options still exist, big reserves are in materials. Many areas just start: exploration of new alloys, divisions of proteins in weightless state. Physics and chemistry overlap in materials, devices.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="idiomas" style="background: #FFDD66; border-top-right-radius: 50px; clear: left; color: #553300; float: left; padding: 1px; width: 49%;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioFxzQocRBeUvV8oLS9ltrb_NCh4l-59PbXVZ_heAwH88va2oCssUz-kgXPJ0ZlNUJeAuAW5HM9bfDdoByaAEhzJ4XbIvk_tjHoLhUWE6EejkCWUG0z5_cLVGxJQZTD2LiwnEWVuRrhzg/s1600/Miro_Brada_small.png" style="float: right;" width="100" /></a><b>Art is Science is Language</b>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" target="_blank">Kant</a> criticized the pure reason and pure practice. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" target="_blank">Wittgenstein </a><span style="color: #553300;">had said philosophy </span><span style="color: #553300; font-size: x-small;">meta language</span> points to nothing, only confuses, then left his claim. Understanding needs an interface of idea and experience: meta language
<span style="color: #553300; font-size: x-small;">logic</span> that led with experiments to spaceship, opera, computer, jazz... Logic has its own inner laws, dynamics, evolution. Before <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev" target="_blank">Mendeleev </a>chemistry was chaotic, prior to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton" target="_blank">Newton </a>physics didn't express gravitation, movement, light. Newton and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci" target="_blank">Da Vinci</a> read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid" target="_blank">Euclid</a>. Is so Euclid's geometry art or science? Both need creativity to reflect or change a reality. This way they are one. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau" target="_blank">Rousseau</a>'s natural man had no incentive to split art and science, as nothing was to split. The power structure divided art and science to subordinate humans by their specialisms justifying itself: it is as it is. Art and science differ as Chinese 中國, Russian русский, Arabic العربية ... Arts, sciences, languages express <b>samE</b> <b>differEntly</b>.<br />
<div style="font-size: 10px; padding-top: 7px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant" target="_blank">Kant 1724-1804</a> thought there was 'thing in itself' like Plato's pure idea - we can't understand or experience it.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" target="_blank">Wittgenstein 1889-1951</a> once thought philosophy (or pure notions) is a byproduct of misunderstanding of language.<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev" target="_blank">Mendeleev 1834-1907</a> properties of elements periodically repeat with their weights and can be organized accordingly<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton" target="_blank">Newton 1642-1726</a> calculus, optics, gravitation / motion laws. Inspired by Euclid, Descartes...<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci" target="_blank">Da Vinci 1452-1519</a> Painter, inventor... Inspired by Euclid...<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid" target="_blank">Euclid 400-300 BC</a> Mathematician, father of geometry...<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau" target="_blank">Rousseau 1712-78</a> Modern man wants to impress others not to satisfy himself (natural man did). Science, art corrupts morality.</div>
</div>
<div style="float: right; width: 49%;">
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b><br /></b>
<b>Is science given a-priori <span style="font-size: x-small;">objectively</span>, or it projects human factor?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Human factor always exists in communication, agreement about meaning of notions, common vocabulary. That phosphorus is phosphorus denoted as P, its atomic weight is 31.04 times of weight of atom of isotope of hydrogen 1H, etc. It is about terminology, units' definitions, names, their taxonomy. Name of abstract notions (like name of colors) are agreed. Science does not exist objectively. It is a method of exploration of objective realities and their relations, and logical synthesis for higher knowledge and potential utilization. For that the "language" is necessary, which leads to practical problems. Japanese translate all scientific and technical non-japanese literature to their letters. But there are things given in advance too, like life asymmetry: proteins consist of only L amino-nucleotides. It could be opposite. Unity and its consequence can be understood, given things harder.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>May society exclude the best scientist?</b></div>
<div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
Rather in socialism (i.e. before 1989). I avoid to participate in grant commissions in case my acquaintance would apply. One juror reproached us why we having so much funds, applied for grant. Able person doesn't need to be lucky, or occasionally is unable to formulate its aim. </div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b><br /></b>
<b>Science needs a material or social background. W</b><b>hat would have done Edison, Einstein if he could not develop his talent?</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
I can't identify with it. People can't think about science under such circumstances. They must leave, as Moroccans or Algerians moving to France, England. Hard to do science, if you can't feed your family.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<b>Some surgeons deciding about life, have God complex. Chemist changing matter can have similar feelings.</b></div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Capek" target="_blank">K Čapek</a> wrote about it in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatit" target="_blank">Krakatit <span style="font-size: x-small;">1922</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne" target="_blank">J Verne </a>in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Begum%27s_Fortune" target="_blank">The Begum's Fortune <span style="font-size: x-small;">1879</span></a>. If you label 'chemists' people from the Japanese sect, that prepared gas to kill in Tokyo metro, then perhaps yes. It is always matter of the perverse logic.</div>
<div style="color: #002255;">
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="float: left; width: 49%;">
<div style="clear: both; float: left;">
<br />
<b>Will other substance replace oil in future?</b><br />
People often think oil is replaceable, while it contains organic compounds not producible. It is not about cars, but rather chemical and pharmaceutical industry, which needs oil. That fear of exhaustion is justified.</div>
<div style="clear: both; float: left;">
<br />
<b>What was a difference between research before and after 1989 <span style="font-size: x-small;">in Czecho-Slovakia</span>? </b><br />
According to my experience in my field, which could be perhaps generalized for all experimental natural and technical sciences, there were much less means, but were guaranteed. Much less bureaucracy and obstacles, possibility to focus on work. The young appreciated to work in science, only the best could be chosen. They were much cannier, inventive, less focused on money. They were not so predatory or did not reveal their ambitions. Except quality of the work, there was at least one barrier - relations among people were easier. As they did not care of money, did not need to cheat. Why would anybody fraudulently usurp someone's else work, whose author was not? That all can be contrarily applied after 1989. Moreover before Westerners had considered us sort of 'freaks' having so advantages in everything or at least special position. Today we are members of the painfully hobbling clan of wolves hurtling for a vision of money, unfairly hindering, and ruthlessly attacking each other. We still assess ourselves, count publications, scores, quotes, doing ranks... It seems to me we lost the sense for the meaning of science. Social appreciation of science, already before not high, has downgraded more. Much richer enterpreneurs, new riches, pop stars have moved before the science. For politicians and government (left, middle, right) education is unimportant. Why it should be? In spite of all declarations, they literally care a damn about science, with a mockery.</div>
<br /></div>
<div style="clear: both;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="width: 100%;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> <span style="font-size: large;">The Science is a subset of the Art</span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aj00hsD0iKns2F9emZQp17DdbZ-ruCQD__v_mV5hvFsOIb1GuJFXkzHIH8ki7yOqqSSiaCfki-FONNMPI-OCqAtUdfLp5VEEwed9qmJegzF3P3pCORum3nGkaky9z28POGW1pzO1kb4/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" /></a></div>
<div>
Reality is a sum of:<br />
<br />
1) <b>existing prototypes</b>: p <sub>chair</sub> + p <sub>wheel</sub> + p <sub>magnet</sub> + ... p <sub>i</sub><br />
Intricate prototype includes others e.g: p <sub>car </sub>= p <sub>wheel </sub>+ p <sub>engine </sub>+... + p <sub>xy</sub> <sub> </sub><br />
Prototype occurs with probability: 1/a. The more intricate prototype, the lower its probability. 1 / a <sub>spaceship</sub> < 1 / a <sub>wheel</sub><br />
What are the smallest prototypes? Is there a prototype of all prototypes? The first prototypes are logical series. The wheel is wheel because it rotates, so it includes rotation + something: p <sub>wheel </sub>= p <sub>rotation </sub>+ ... + p <sub>xy</sub>. In my master thesis, I developed a test to create (not solve) logical series on patterns. Tested persons drew 20 distinct logic (plus their combinations): adding, decreasing, rotating, alternating, diminishing, increasing, repeating, analogy etc. In a given period: a) the more series and more intricate series, the higher intelligence, b) the more distinct series, the higher flexibility, c) the least frequent series, the higher originality (e.g. diminishing is rarer than adding).<br />
<br />
2) <b>imitations of prototypes</b>: p <sub>chair:1</sub> + p <sub>chair:2</sub> + p <sub>wheel:512</sub> + p <sub>magnet:4</sub> + ... p <sub>i:x</sub>, where x is order of imitated prototype (p <sub>chair:2 </sub>= 2nd imitation of the chair). Imitation is the first attribute of intelligence: ability to reflect (imitate) reality. Each imitation has something new or unique, different from its prototype. Speculatively, everything is a prototype: first red chair, first oval chair, first plastic chair, etc... Even mass produced things have unique time of creation, location etc. But attributes (time, location) unique to all, are irrelevant to prototype. E.g. a chair is to sit, independent of its color, shape, time, location... So first red / oval / plastic chair isn't a prototype, but imitation of prototype (first chair). Imitation of reality is inevitable for art, science. It may be hidden: cubist image of repeated decomposed face. If imitation is absent like in e.g. abstract art - supposed to reflect mental states, it results in too many indistinguishable variations (millions of ink blots) devaluing such art.<br />
<br />
3) <b>potential prototypes</b>: mental qualities materialized if there is opportunity, motivation. New prototype (invention) changes (adds new functionality) and imitates reality. E.g. Dalí's melts (changes) and imitates watch (watch looks like watch). Or Newton / Leibniz imitated the space of non-linear curves to add a new method (calculus) to compute it. Imitation may be imperfect: Dolly the first cloned (imitated) animal died young, but still imitated real sheep (considering complexity of cloning). Invention may occur independently in different environments, times: e.g. shoes appeared in ancient Australia, Europe, Asia... Some could be unique spread from one place (steam engine). The intricacy of invention is product of environment (opportunity) and mental quality (intelligence, motivation): a wheel in a jungle can be bigger invention than a new model in a car factory.<br />
<br />
4) <b>power structure</b> (politics): imposes limits on prototypes via ideology, religions. Duchamp's Fountain (1917) - a urinal, showed a marketing power may define anything as art. Politics may limit inventions, especially if rulers are afraid of undermining their authorities. Soviet Union promoted socialistic realism of workers' life, Hitler liked Renaissance and banned 'decadent' avant-garde... Liberalism tends to promote subjectivity without limits (abstractions, obscenity) at the expense of high art - which can arise only within the limits.<br />
<br />
<b>Personality model</b><br />
What requires higher intellect: launching rocket to space (cosmonautics) or creating tricky puzzles? Is a parallel logic (e.g. Descartes's XY) possible, or all is phenomena in themselves? Are systems (philosophies) explaining realities, valid, reliable, useful?<br />
Each product (Picasso's painting, Tsiolkovsky's rocket, Newton's formula...) is a sum of prototypes, mental qualities, environment. Probability of a product is a multiplication of probabilities within all independent prototypes that create the product. Example of product = p <sub>rotation</sub> + p <sub>repeating & analogy</sub> + ... p <sub>i</sub>. The lower probability, the higher intricacy . The probability depends on environment: a wheel is less likely in a jungle than in a city.<br />
All products including inventions of Picasso, Edison, Descartes, Mendeleev, Newton etc are comparable via their probabilities. Like a mental figure skating: products are variously combined jumps, pirouettes. Because thinking is not physically limited, the mental figure skating has more options, variations. Other question is: what happens with intelligence (inventions) which can't be materialized (no opportunity). Will be non-utilized intelligence lost in environment, or transferred to mental disorders: paranoia, neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis? Mental disorders are then also a product: composed of logical series creating disillusions (because of no opportunity or deficient intellect). Example of disorder = p <sub>rotation</sub> + p <sub>repeating & analogy</sub> + ... p <sub>i</sub><br />
Can personality model explain things more complex than itself? It is possible to break down complex things to simpler, and also people may assess (understand difficulty) somersaults, pirouettes, even if they are unable to perform them. So a complex thing (or its attributes) can be understood by simpler systems. After all, people often believe in oversimplified systems: religions, ideologies, economics, evolution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="Edison" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Edison's Economics</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Kultúra, 1999</div>
1) Edison carries hammers from the ancient factory. He thinks to easier his work. It slows him, so he is less paid and risks to be fired. What utility Edison maximizes?<br />
2) Edison's boss sees Edison is slow. It reduces his profit, so he should fire him, but he waits - thinking why Edison is slow. What utility Edison's boss maximizes?<br />
3) Edison invents a vehicle radically raising the output.<br />
<br />
In classic utility, Edison's thinking is investment, and the vehicle is expected value. Edison's boss represents society crucial to promote invention: temporary patent should stimulate it. Unpredictability of invention reduces its expected value: thinking is irrational (rarely results in patent). So Edison and his boss think regardless of outcome, having 'thinking in utility'.<br />
<br />
Economic formulas of behavior rather justifies power structure, than reflects reality. Newton's calculus is verifiable in reality, while variability of results in economics apologizes anything in politics. Economics has become a 'modern' religion, when obeying 'economic laws' raises expected utility (=karma, heaven...), while disobedience decreases it (=hell...).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYRV4EWbaHajKl61WF4zgtjOtetn0yjeiy0Kv1NYgstn2LC-KQELfK9d7prp8N4oVa6q0hAEwomyktk7B8uf8gjk-2x6ckbmJf9B4QzZorrEzy1cE4ra35BaV8xd-BCRkxl6yn6rdDkdY/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYRV4EWbaHajKl61WF4zgtjOtetn0yjeiy0Kv1NYgstn2LC-KQELfK9d7prp8N4oVa6q0hAEwomyktk7B8uf8gjk-2x6ckbmJf9B4QzZorrEzy1cE4ra35BaV8xd-BCRkxl6yn6rdDkdY/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.1999.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Later I generalized 'thinking in utility' to <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/maximization-of-originality.html">maximization of originality</a> model, enabling to explain any kind of motivation including destructive behavior. Understanding of thinking is in <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/personality-model.html">Personality model</a> clarifying the intellect, intelligence, originality, personality, neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgayFnvWk5ElVMhb9RnmnGpsAuGqhcYmWoEnUeaFDRY090V731qkpq3FNweXZ3MUwGIeb4_qfIp5FnhgDSDLfGCAeRxfYYf7qSVCfQ4DkR3JHIrEoQZfZziM_qOpDXrjI_px8GlIXLkGRA/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.Einstein.1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgayFnvWk5ElVMhb9RnmnGpsAuGqhcYmWoEnUeaFDRY090V731qkpq3FNweXZ3MUwGIeb4_qfIp5FnhgDSDLfGCAeRxfYYf7qSVCfQ4DkR3JHIrEoQZfZziM_qOpDXrjI_px8GlIXLkGRA/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.Einstein.1999.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b style="text-align: center;"><br /></b></div>
<div>
<div>
<b style="text-align: center;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aj00hsD0iKns2F9emZQp17DdbZ-ruCQD__v_mV5hvFsOIb1GuJFXkzHIH8ki7yOqqSSiaCfki-FONNMPI-OCqAtUdfLp5VEEwed9qmJegzF3P3pCORum3nGkaky9z28POGW1pzO1kb4/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aj00hsD0iKns2F9emZQp17DdbZ-ruCQD__v_mV5hvFsOIb1GuJFXkzHIH8ki7yOqqSSiaCfki-FONNMPI-OCqAtUdfLp5VEEwed9qmJegzF3P3pCORum3nGkaky9z28POGW1pzO1kb4/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" /></a></div>
<b style="text-align: center;"> </b> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Extractos" style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); border-top-left-radius: 5px; clear: both; color: #773b00; float: right; font-family: Arial; font-size: 17px; padding-top: 15px; width: 250px;">
<b>从艺术节选</b> <span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">20010-2007</span>
<br />
<b>Excerpts from the Art</b> <span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">2010-2007</span>
</div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; width: 50%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08VdX-9iTsXzBKAQgqvZfeVAXZmuSk0MJSkb70c6mczGCOTpfgs-X9eK-GJNIxiFa6NK1GeZtRHNDNW6sSsbZ9szR5ZbbAzfZl1SoCo1pGr1J5Z3L6hPETT3XB45Y2ezueCa7qdsmQ84/s1600/NaomiPopArtMiroBrada.gif" />
</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); float: right; margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 5px; width: 250px;">
<div style="font-size: 18px; text-align: right;">
<span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">20010-2007</span> <b>مقتطفات من الفن</b></div>
<br />
The same reality can be viewed differently.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial; width: 250px;">
Cubism <span style="font-size: x-small;">Picasso, Braque</span> and surrealism <span style="font-size: x-small;">Dalí, Ernst, Magritte</span> look for the deepness of the expression or dreamy reality, Bacon reforms the deepness into malformations, Rothko’s abstractions attack the perception, and Warhol’s pop-art remakes the surface: 15 minutes of fame.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 250px;">
In parallel, there is a philosophical tradition of analysing: searching for the pure idea, thing in itself, authenticity of cognition, Dao (Plato, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze) or rather the focus is put on dialectics, experience, will, decision, utility, text, study, cogito, society, xxx (Heraclitus, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucius, Descartes, Rousseau, Yyy).</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial;">
La misma realidad se puede ver de manera diferente. El cubismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">Picasso, Braque</span> y el surrealismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">Dalí, Ernst, Magritte</span> buscan la profundidad de la expresión o la realidad de ensueño, Bacon transforma la profundidad en las malformaciones, las abstracciones de Rothko atacan a la percepciones, y el pop-art de Warhol rehace la superficie: 15 minutos de la fama.</div>
<div style="background: #efd; border-bottom-right-radius: 15px; float: right; font-family: Arial;">
En paralelo, hay una tradición filosófica de análisis: la búsqueda de la idea pura, una cosa en sí misma, la autenticidad de la cognición, Dao (Platón, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze), o más bien la atención se centra en la dialéctica, la experiencia, la voluntad, decisión, la utilidad, texto, estudio, cogito, la sociedad, xxx (Heráclito, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucio, Descartes, Rousseau, YYY).</div>
<div style="clear: both; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="float: right; width: 60%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1Bri7FHKl-VpwVEu4jTwJr_vmiNwZ5IwGMyL-scSrAQF9uTlka7wLCkCbgn6RQn3j8jqewaTpmtUo2ChLTbWjPd8c_osvadMEx6EsYuDIA-5r0CdwnnUQ3PoiN9qI4Z8YIlX-_26jWyA/s1600/MiroBradaLAcrobat2.gif" />
</div>
<div style="float: left; width: 40%;">
<div style="background: linear-gradient(180deg, #efd, #ae9); color: #005500; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
Picasso, Braque pioneered Cubism <span style="font-size: x-small;">1907</span>, showing the object in different angles, evoking plasticity. Its novelty is HOW it is done, not WHAT it shows. Surrealism <span style="font-size: x-small;">1920s </span>randomly links objects, motifs leading to a new curved style, induced by Chirico <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888-1978</span>, mastered by Dalí <span style="font-size: x-small;">904-1989</span>. Surrealism innovates the content altering the form, while the cubist new form alters the content.</div>
<div style="background: linear-gradient(180deg, #ae9, #efd); color: #000066; color: #114411; padding-right: 15px; padding: 1px;">
Picasso, Braque foi pioneira cubismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">1907</span>, mostrando o objeto em diferentes ângulos, evocando plasticidade. Sua novidade é a forma COMO ele é feito, não o QUE ele mostra. Surrealismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">1920s</span> liga aleatoriamente objetos, motivos que levam a um novo estilo curvado, induzida por Chirico <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888-1978</span>, masterizado por Dalí <span style="font-size: x-small;">904-1989</span>. Surrealismo inova o conteúdo, que altera a forma, enquanto a nova forma cubista altera o conteúdo.
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
<div style="float: left; width: 60%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_McYXGzI_vlSE8UEtnEti-SFNs7-4iFMQ04MGWb8rxdA4oAKRhQi6vI8ai-DaGv0WMT3zhyphenhyphenWtuwVIjhvrDd5VZUL-HAKVako03iLpVyVq96Gca0iZxCdROpFGLMIpfWH_DiN1WXUzjI4/s1600/BlueDancersMn2.gif" />
</div>
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 7px; width: 40%;">
<span style="color: #555555;">Возможно, самая впечатляющая импрессионистская живопись, по крайней мере не хуже, чем Подсолнечники Ван Гога <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888</span>, или Хокусай Большая Волна от Канагавы <span style="font-size: x-small;">1829</span>. Аналогично <i>кубизм</i>, <i>импрессионизм</i> обновляет форму: фрагментирование изображения, изменяющего</span><span style="color: #555555;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #555555;">иллюминат, окрашивать, изменяют размеры, пятнает...</span></span><span style="color: #555555;"> его части, чтобы перекрасить его снова.</span></div>
<div style="background: #eee; float: right; width: 40%;">
Perhaps the most impressive impressionistic painting, at least not worse than Van Gogh's Sunflowers <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888</span>, or Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa <span style="font-size: x-small;">1829</span>. Likewise <i>cubism</i>, <i>impressionism</i> innovates the form: fragmenting the image, altering <span style="font-size: x-small;">illuminate, colorify, resize, blur...</span> its fractions to repaint it again.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background: #ffeedd; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 1px; box-shadow: -5px 5px 3px #ddd; color: #998877; float: left; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 2px; padding-top: 7px; width: 61%;">
Identical things don't exist, not due to manufacture limit (Heisenberg's uncertainty) to produce EXACTLY same things, but because they have different positions, creation times. If probability of the first is 1/a, probability of the next is 1/a²
<br />
<div style="background: #998877; border-bottom-left-radius: 7px; border-bottom-right-radius: 2px; color: #ffeedd; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 2px;">
Choses identiques ne existent pas, non pas parce que la limite de fabrication (l'incertitude de Heisenberg) pour produire EXACTAMENT les même choses, mais parce que ils ont positions différente, autre moments de la création. Si la probabilité de la première est 1/a, la probabilité de la prochaine est 1/a²
</div>
</div>
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; width: 30%;">
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/interviews.html" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjie9UYfgoCYz3yeOblqQwTKhIr4Vk3Yjyn1mYmOM7sqJW_aHO_ze9CqnZi4ZXYTUi5HCmwU2bcWXwLw-Lke1GwklxqVAvIHQDNs-HylaX4bBTcSBerLeHAlBg0gn0wyMYoDqxZ9I8cq2E/s1600/This.is.not.Foucalt_Miro.Brada_2004_small.gif" /></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-64758239689028480132014-01-19T10:46:00.001-08:002015-06-21T07:34:25.053-07:00We are again at the very beginning<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
About selected philosophical questions of the past and today, with Egon Bondy (1930-2007).<br />
Before and after the regime change in 1989, he was a spiritual leader of the Czechoslovak underground. I met Bondy at the coffee <i>U Anjelov</i> in Bratislava in 2003, and we started talking about philosophy. We made an appointment for the interview couple of months later in a flat he was living. The author of philosophical texts, fictions, poetry musicalized by the cult band <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYIRA7abaY" target="_blank">Plastic People of the Universe</a>, (once) friend with important figures like writer Bohumil Hrabal or dissident / president Václav Havel. He was also known as an interpreter of Marx, oriental philosophy, science and 'futurist' predicting the rise of China or financial crisis (2008).<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
This interview was published in <a href="http://blisty.cz/art/15557.html" target="_blank">Blisty</a> and <a href="http://www.noveslovo.sk/c/18421/Sme_opat_na_samotnom_zaciatku" target="_blank">Nove Slovo</a>, 2003, and <a href="http://philpapers.org/archive/BRAM-4.pdf" target="_blank">Philpapers</a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/books/15bondy.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Egon Bondy, Obituary, New York Times, 2007</a><br />
<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Consolation_of_Ontology.html?id=ieV1yVDpuPwC&redir_esc=y" target="_blank">Egon Bondy, Consolation from the ontology, 1968</a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: red; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; text-align: left;">
I redefine the existential view of decision that is incomplete and show why 'social science' can be mathematized.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe68DjgQztIa-ZcX90spoj57_H4cBvxQFvxRLZXWJVs5rCHHINxmC8_avu9peWSz7-7jnvS87BkOS2Ejb_oc01bT1dcr1qoWLCt2Z2M8zti7VDWrRxQ3TQc8dlcQ8aaXphX5NUqcCZaV4/s1600/Miro.Brada_Bondy_2014_corto.gif" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe68DjgQztIa-ZcX90spoj57_H4cBvxQFvxRLZXWJVs5rCHHINxmC8_avu9peWSz7-7jnvS87BkOS2Ejb_oc01bT1dcr1qoWLCt2Z2M8zti7VDWrRxQ3TQc8dlcQ8aaXphX5NUqcCZaV4/s1600/Miro.Brada_Bondy_2014_corto.gif" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="text-align: left;">
Estamos de nuevo en el principio</h3>
<div>
Acerca de ciertas cuestiones filosóficas del pasado y del presente, con Egon Bondy (1930-2007). Antes y después del cambio de régimen en 1989, fue un líder espiritual del movimiento clandestino de Checoslovaquia. Conocí a Bondy en el café <i>U Anjelov</i> en Bratislava en 2003, y empezamos a hablar de filosofía. Nos citamos para la entrevista un par de meses más tarde en el piso en el que estaba viviendo. El autor de los textos filosóficos, ficciones, poesía musicalizada por la Banda de culto <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYIRA7abaY" target="_blank">Plastic People of the Universe</a>, (una vez) amigo de figuras importantes como el escritor Bohumil Hrabal o disidente / presidente Václav Havel. También fue conocido como intérprete de Marx, la filosofía oriental, la ciencia, y 'futurista' prediciendo el surgimiento de China o la crisis financiera (2008).<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="color: red; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 9px; margin-top: 9px; text-align: left;">
Explico por qué es la visión existencial de la decisión incompleta y por qué la "ciencia social" se puede matematizado.</div>
<br />
<div style="background: #bbb; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-radius: 8px; border: 1px solid #111; box-shadow: 2px 2px 1px #333; color: #444444; float: left; margin-bottom: 4px; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>What's philosopher's work about?</b><br />
The philosopher does not fable, just generalizes our experience gathered during centuries. This way sooner or later, the speech about everything will come out...</div>
<div style="background: #ffa; color: #777777; float: right; margin-bottom: 4px; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿De qué trata la obra del filósofo?</b><br />
El filósofo no fabula, sólo generaliza nuestra experiencia acumulada durante siglos.<br />
De esta manera, tarde o temprano, el discurso surgirá...
</div>
<div style="background: #ffa; border-radius: 8px; border: 2px solid #990; box-shadow: 2px 2px 1px #990; color: #777777; float: right; margin-bottom: 7px; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Cuál es el significado de la filosofía hoy?</b><br />
Cada campo de la ciencia o el arte tiene su algoritmo evolutivo causado por toda la cadena de condiciones.
La ciencia contemporánea se enfrenta a cuestiones insolubles por su metodología o herramientas.
Las revistas científicas piden a los filósofos que no olviden su fama más allá y contribuyan de nuevo...
</div>
<div style="background: #ccc; color: #333333; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>What's the meaning of the philosophy today?</b><br />
Each scientific or art field has its evolutionary algorithm caused by the whole chain of conditions. Contemporary science faces questions insoluble by its methodology or tools. Scientific journals ask philosophers, not to forget their past fame and contribute again...</div>
<div style="background: #fcc; color: #990000; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Por qué la ciencia no puede responder a todas las preguntas ?</b><br />
Está limitada por su metodología, excepto la exploración de las cosas fuera de nuestra experiencia empírica
o sensible. Augusto Comte (1798-1857) determina estos límites, sin los cuales la ciencia
no es exacta. Las preguntas metafísicas y axiológicas no pueden ser verificadas por la ciencia.</div>
<div style="background: #ddd; border-radius: 8px; border: 3px dotted #009; clear: right; color: #111111; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Why science can't answer all questions?</b><br />
It is restricted by its methodology, excluding exploration of the things out of our empirical<br />
or sensual experience. August Comte (1798-1857) determined these limits, without which the science is not exact. Metaphysical and axiological questions are so unverifiable by science.</div>
<div style="background: #eef; clear: left; color: #000011; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Can philosophy discover anything by itself?</b><br />
Although philosophy accepted the game on science, dealing still more with secondary issues, many inventions came only from its own resources, which brought a big progress.</div>
<div style="background: #fdd; color: #993333; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Puede la filosofía descubrir algo por sí misma?</b><br />
Aunque la filosofía aceptó el juego en la ciencia, tratando aún más con cuestiones secundarias,
muchas invenciones vinieron sólo de sus propios recursos, lo que trajo un gran avance.</div>
<div style="background: #ddf; border-bottom: 1px solid #00f; border-right: 2px solid #009; clear: left; color: #000033; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Which philosophers contributed most?</b><br />
Apart from Nietzsche (1844-1900), from the pure philosophers without contacts with science, it was Heidegger (1889-1976), who discovered a new unanticipated space by a philosophical speculative rational reduction.</div>
<div style="background: #ccf; color: #000099; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>The fear of the finiteness?</b><br />
Rather responsibility. In Heidegger's view, human decides at every moment, so can't be irresponsible. The notion 'Dasein' defines a specific human being: a situation of a permanent alert, in which must decide. Humans can't give up their free decision defining their space. 'We are cursed with freedom' as Sartre simplified it...</div>
<div style="background: #edd; color: #663333; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Qué filósofos fueron los que más contribuyeron?</b><br />
Además de Nietzsche (1844-1900), de los filósofos puros sin contactos con la ciencia,
fue Heidegger (1889-1976), quien descubrió un nuevo espacio no previsto por una reducción
racional especulativa filosófica.
</div>
<div style="background: #ddd; border-right: 2px solid #c3c; border-top-right-radius: 15px; border-top: 3px solid #a0a; color: #555555; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>El miedo a lo finito?</b><br />
Más bien la responsabilidad. En opinión de Heidegger, los humanos deciden en cada momento, por lo que no puede ser irresponsable. La idea de 'Dasein' define un ser humano específico: una situación de alerta permanente, en el que debe decidir. Los humanos no pueden renunciar a su decisión libre de definir su espacio. 'Nos han maldecido a la libertad',
como Sartre simplificó.
</div>
<div style="background: #dde; color: #333366; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Was Heidegger the most important philosopher of the 20th century?</b><br />
Could be said. Some philosophers had touched this problem, but no one made systematic analysis. Heidegger exactly and accurately mapped it, that was a great cognitive achievement. At first people liked its popular form of the so called Existentialism, then it started haunting them...</div>
<div style="background-color: #cccccc; color: #444444; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Fue Heidegger el filósofo más importante del siglo XX?</b><br />
Podría ser. Algunos filósofos habían tocado este problema, pero nadie hizo un análisis sistemático. Heidegger lo asigna con exactitud y precisión, eso fue un gran logro cognitivo. Al principio a la gente le gustaba su forma popular del llamado existencialismo, luego empezó a asustarle.
</div>
<div style="background: #eed; border-right: 2px solid #c3c; border-top-right-radius: 15px; border-top: 3px solid #a0a; color: #555533; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Why?</b><br />
Because its conclusion is unpleasant. Ceaseless deciding is exhausting, especially if I realize consequences. Each decision creates a risk, and responsibility, which people don't want to listen.</div>
<div style="background: #ffc; clear: left; color: #777711; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Is it related to intelligence to understand that?</b><br />
It is related also to intelligence, but mainly people don't like do and listen it.</div>
<div style="background: #ffa; color: #444400; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Too few options may disable a decision...</b><br />
It depends on opportunities, but from purely philosophical view the decision is simple: always between alternatives. In the extreme, between life or death.</div>
<div style="background: #bcb; border-right: 1px solid #555; color: #334433; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Por qué?</b><br />
Debido a que su conclusión es desagradable. Decidir incesantemente es agotador, especialmente si me doy cuenta de las consecuencias. Cada decisión crea un riesgo, y la responsabilidad, que la gente no quiere escuchar.</div>
<div style="background: #aea; border-radius: 3px; border-right: 2px solid #777; color: #005500; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Demasiadas pocas opciones pueden desactivar una decisión...</b><br />
Depende de las oportunidades, pero desde la vista puramente filosófica la decisión es simple: siempre
entre alternativas. En el extremo, entre la vida o la muerte.
</div>
<div style="background: #bdb; border-right: 0px solid #999; color: #224422; float: left; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Está relacionado con la inteligencia para entender eso?</b><br />
Se relaciona también con la inteligencia, pero sobre todo la gente no le gusta hacerlo y escucharlo.
</div>
<div style="background: #feb; color: #443322; float: right; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Awareness of better opportunities elsewhere, creates a big frustration.</b><br />
In case of survival frustration is luxury. Each problem, regardless of conditions, is reducible to binary system: yes or no. It is a phenomenological reduction valid in science too.
</div>
<div id="comentario" style="float: left;">
<div style="color: #990000; font-family: sans-serif;">
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZYgId2yyNnq3fBtu3-4tlpbJE83mNCnBprTOhghP6Zqjb0OjtdyAZQIpS8fXr4dxP179oRaVU5mk80m93WN0Q4LdMlL5U69YvAqek1DIvNzB3xPYL_vzXZ2Rzqiz2529tgXxvtq3gdE0/s1600/Miro.Brada.Autorretratos.2014.gif" /></a>
</div>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1rRAn5qMWcAEDLn1YljAvflI2jaLDO0gSjz-0OW9DiESt4mMDuRqYyMOYuN9UhVJJcP8JbUanxenkoLlo3hyphenhyphenxs4EYxSDWzr2TW6bYbFwPWhOmprcjgkqDmHFxqL064Xb-9UHW31h2Km4/s1600/Miro_Brada_small.png" style="border-bottom-left-radius: 20px; border-bottom-right-radius: 20px; border-top-left-radius: 20px; border-top-right-radius: 20px; float: left; position: relative; z-index: 100;" width="65" /></a>
</div>
<div style="border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 255); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 2px; color: #990000; font-family: sans-serif;">
<b>Here I was unsatisfied with the answer.</b>
<br />
After I left the flat, was thinking of a situation preventing decision. If somebody is killing you, you can't decide to stay alive at that moment. Or: you can't marry yourself, some people can't get visa... You can limitlessly decide about often unimportant things: sleep on the left or right, hold breath for 1, 2, X seconds... But you can't decide in many relevant cases, unless others allow you. It is odd why Heidegger, Sartre overlooked* it. Sartre once said he surprised himself how radical he had been. *<span style="font-size: 10px;">The post-war society thirsty for strong ideas could explain the popularity of slightly oversimplified Existential theses.</span>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffeeff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-right-color: rgb(136, 136, 170); border-right-style: dotted; border-right-width: 1px; color: #990000; font-family: sans-serif; padding-top: 4px;">
My decision depends on <b>opportunity</b>: others' permission, my <b>intellect</b> to realize the opportunity, and <b>reality</b> of physical limits: I must eat, can't fly... My intellect can be misled by pseudo-opportunity e.g. lottery. A decision to make money* in a lottery is pseudo-opportunity, as it is on average impossible (owners of lotteries make money, not players). There are multi-dependencies too: others may (not) allow me opportunity, but at the same time my decisions contribute to others' opportunities, with a statistical asymmetry: I influence others much less than vice verse (except my position is powerful). *<span style="font-size: 10px;">There can be more reasons to play a lottery: fun, excitement, which are not pseudo-opportunities. But to play a lottery for money is pseudo-opportunity.</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<div style="color: #990000;">
The existential necessity to decide is incomplete because:
</div>
<div style="color: #aa1111;">
a) I can't sometimes decide, unless others allow me
<br />
b) I can't exceed reality regardless if it is idealistic <span style="font-size: x-small;">Plato, Kant</span>, irrational <span style="font-size: x-small;">Schopenhauer</span> or different.
<br />
c) My intellect may overlook the opportunity to decide, or be tempted by pseudo-opportunity.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffee; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-right-color: rgb(136, 170, 136); border-right-style: dotted; border-right-width: 1px; color: #990000;">
Corrected concept of Sartre is: 'we are SOMETIMES sentenced to freedom'. The new could be: <b>One of us will die first</b> connecting my and other decision with reality. I can decide when I die (except sudden dead) just in terms of .XY second. Observing my dying, asking myself: am I dead or not yet? When I'll decide 'I am dead', I could still a little hold on by .0XY second to eternally delay my choice to die <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea" style="font-size: x-small;" target="_blank">Zeno paradox 490-30 BC</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus" style="font-size: x-small;" target="_blank">Democritus 460-370 BC</a>. Observing your dying, I must once decide: 'you are dead', while I could still a bit postpone that choice. So I can choose a moment when I or you die, but I can't decide we never die (religion is other issue). The reality is then over my decision. My intellect that I can't directly change, is a given part of reality too. Then it seems my decision is computable from the reality (+ others' decisions, my intellect), except few moments. E.g. now I can decide to stop writing, or you can decide to stop reading. </div>
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/china-and-india-can-dominate.html#becker" style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000;">Some economists say</a><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000;">: cigarette's price don't influence decision (not) to smoke. As an </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)" style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000;" target="_blank">inelastic good</a><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000;">: price of bread or water has little impact on its consumption. But in a famine you can't eat at any price: shortage affects average consumption, the black market only partially compensates it </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States" style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000; font-size: x-small;" target="_blank">Prohibition 1920-33 cut alcohol use,</a> <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1992/becker-bio.html" style="color: #990000; font-size: x-small;" target="_blank">G. Becker's</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction" style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #990000; font-size: x-small;" target="_blank"> addiction model 1988: cigarette's cost reduces average smoking</a><span style="color: #990000;">. The liberal economics overestimates the individual decisions at the expense of the reality and others' decisions. It prefers richer (or otherwise influential), whose positions enable them to (at least temporarily) deny others and reality. Real liberalism should offer more opportunities for all regardless of their positions. This could spillover: more options to decide enable me to decide to enable others more and vice verse. Comparing </span><span style="color: #cc0000;">1) I have all opportunities (=God), others none, 2) all have same opportunities. </span><span style="color: #990000;">The latter one has more opportunities in overall as they can be mutually combined. The difference in intellect (ability to discover opportunities) may mean: to maximize total opportunities (for all), society should prefer intellect.</span></div>
<div style="background: #fed; color: #990000; font-family: sans-serif;">
Understanding of decision (why, when, what) needs a new logic, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system" target="_blank">Descartes' Cartesian system</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid">Euclid's geometry</a> helping Newton to mathematize natural laws (quantum physics added statistics). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory" target="_blank">Game theory (1944)</a> has such potential, but oversimplifies motivation excluding 'irrational' behavior or externalities. <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/maximization-of-originality.html" target="_blank">What does a suicide, schizophrenic, or a dying person maximize?</a> Also it ignores difference in intellect with <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/theory-of-intelligence-and-bias-of.html" target="_blank">potentially different outcomes</a>. It does not mean we can't mathematize or verify psychology or society. The claim it can't be exactly defined, is true till it is exactly defined. Same could be said before Newton: 'we can't mathematize motion, light, gravitation'.
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both; float: left; margin-bottom: 7px; padding-top: 7px;">
<div>
<b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Y </b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><b>aquí </b></span><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">estaba yo insatisfecho con la respuesta.</b><br />
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-OgvMZ2NLGpoq7TKx28SeQoE4Nhv9ft7BMflq3_ZZzKWFyrxD6CpXA-7bzHgz3xh1eHsgv9HXtdiuGThH_nBftuf3RrkNJAoQnI3Ql54BCRlK5e1-9QEvIgvHxGeoW56Brb8f5mCwCNg/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso.jpg" style="float: right;" /></a>
</div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
Tras dejar el piso, estuve pensando sobre la situación de decidir. Si alguien te está matando, no se podria decidir si seguir con vida en ese momento. O, no puedes casarte contigo mismo, algunas personas no pueden obtener la visa. En la mayoria de los casos se puede decidir cosas sin importancia: dormir sobre el lado izquierdo o el derecho, mantener la respiracion durante 1, 2, o X segundos... Pero no se podria decidir en muchos casos relevantes, si los demás no nos lo permiten. Es curioso por qué Heidegger y Sartre se pasan* por alto que. Sartre dijo una vez que él se sorprendió de lo radical que había sido.*<span style="font-size: 10px;">La sociedad de la post-guerra hambrienta de fuertes ideas podría explicar la popularidad de las tesis existenciales ligeramente simplificado.</span>
</div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #eeddff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: sans-serif;">
Mi decisión depende de la <b>oportunidad</b> (del permiso de los demás), mi <b>intelecto</b> para darme cuenta de la oportunidad, y la <b>realidad</b> de los límites físicos: Necesito comer, no puedo volar... Mi intelecto puede ser inducido a error pseudo-oportunidades como p. e. la lotería. La decisión de hacer dinero* en la lotería es pseudo-oportunidad, ya que es estadisticamente imposible (los dueños de la lotería hacen dinero, no los jugadores). Hay múltiples dependencias también: otros pueden (o no) permitirme la oportunidad, pero al mismo tiempo mis decisiones contribuyen a oportunidades de los demás, con una asimetría estadística: yo influyo en los demas mucho menos que ellos en mi (excepto si mi posición es importante). <span style="font-size: x-small;">*No puede haber más razones para jugar una lotería: diversión, emoción, todos lo cuales no son pseudo-oportunidades. Pero jugar una lotería por dinero seria pseudo-oportunidad.</span>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #eeffee; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: sans-serif; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">
La necesidad existencial para decidir esta incompleta porque:<br />
a) No puedo decidir a veces, a menos que otros me lo permitan.<br />
b) No se puede exceder la realidad independientemente si es idealista <span style="font-size: x-small;">Platón, Kant</span>, irracional <span style="font-size: x-small;">Schopenhauer</span> o diferente.<br />
c) Mi intelecto pueden pasar por encima la oportunidad de decidir, o ser tentado por la pseudo-oportunidad.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffeedd; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: sans-serif;">
La correccion del concepto de Sartre es: 'A VECES estamos condenados a la libertad ". Otra forma podría ser '<b>Uno de nosotros morira primero</b>" conectandome mi decision y la de otros con la realidad. Puedo decidir cuando morir (excepto en muerte súbita) sólo en términos de 0.XY segundos. Observando mi muerte, puedo preguntarme: ¿estoy muerto o todavía no? Cuando voy a decidir 'estoy muerto', todavía podría tener un poco de control sobre por un .0XY segundo para retrasar eternamente mi opcion de morir <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Zeno paradoja 490-30 aCo</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Demócrito 460-370 aC</span></a>. Observando otra muerte, tu debes decidir: "tu estás muerto", mientras que todavía podria posponer un poco esa decisión. Así que podriamos elegir el momento en el que morir, pero no podemos decidir el nunca morir (la religión es otro tema). La realidad es entonces sobre mi decisión. Mi intelecto que no puedo intercambiar directamente es una parte de la realidad también. Entonces parece que mi decisión depende completamente de la realidad (+ decisiones de los demás, mi intelecto), excepto en algunas ocasiones. Por ejemplo, ahora puedo decidir dejar de escribir, o tu puedes elegir dejar de leer.</div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
Algunos economistas dicen: el precio del tabaco no puede afectar en la decisión (o no) de fumar. Como inelástica buena: el precio del pan o del agua tiene poco impacto en la media de consumo. En situacion de hambre extrema no se puede comer bajo ningun precio: la escasez afecta el consumo medio, el mercado negro sólo parcialmente lo compensa <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">la prohibición disminuye el consumo de alcohol 1920-1933</span></a>, en <span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction" target="_blank">el modelo de adicción de </a></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction" target="_blank">G. Becker</a> de </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction" target="_blank">1988 el precio del tabaco reduce </a>la media de consumo</span>. La economía liberal sobreestima el poder de las decisiones individuales a expensas de la realidad y de las decisiones de los demás. Se prefiere más ricos (u otras influencias) cuyas importantes posiciones permitirá (al menos temporalmente) ignorar a otros y la realidad. Sin embargo, el liberalismo debe ofrecer más oportunidades para todos independientemente de sus posiciones. Esto podría tener multiples consecuencias: Como que yo tenga más tiempo para decidir, pueda permitir que los demas decidan mas y viceversa. Comparando 1) Tengo todas las oportunidades (= Dios), otros ninguna, 2) todos tienen las mismas oportunidades. En este segundo caso,habria más oportunidades en general,ya que se podrian combinar entre todos nosotros. La diferencia en la inteligencia (capacidad de descubrir oportunidades) es que puede maximizar las oportunidades (para todos), la sociedad debería favorecer hacia el intelecto.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #eeffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: sans-serif;">
Comprensión de decisión (por qué, cuándo, qué) necesita una nueva lógica, como el <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system" target="_blank">sistema cartesiano Descartes</a> o <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid" target="_blank">la geometría de Euclides</a> ayuda a Newton a matematizar las leyes naturales (física cuántica anadiendo estadística). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory" target="_blank">La teoría de juegos (1944) </a>tiene tal potencial, pero simplifica demasiado la motivacion excluyendo el comportamiento irracional y las externalidades. ¿<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/maximization-of-originality.html" target="_blank">Qué hace maximizar un suicidio, la esquizofrenia, o a una persona moribund</a><u>a</u>? También esto ignora la diferencia en la inteligencia <a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/theory-of-intelligence-and-bias-of.html" target="_blank">potencialmente con diferentes resultados</a>. Esto no significa que no podamos verificar o matematizar la psicología o la sociedad. La afirmación de que no se puede definir exactamente, es cierto hasta que se define. Mismamente, se puede decir antes de Newton: 'no podemos matematizar el movimiento, la luz, la gravitación'.
</div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #99ff99; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-right-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 4px; border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; color: #006600; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Conciencia de mejores oportunidades en otros lugares, crea una gran frustración.</b><br />
En el caso de la frustración de supervivencia es el lujo. Cada problema, independientemente de las condiciones, se puede reducir a sistema binario: sí o no. Se trata de una reducción fenomenológica válida en la ciencia también.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffddcc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; color: #443322; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Some Marxists regarded Existentialism as a subjective irrationality...</b><br />
I don’t think Marxists could say so. Sartre (1905-1980) and Jaspers (1883-1969), considered Marx (1818-1883) as their direct ancestor. Together with Heidegger they adopted Marx's analysis of alienation as well as other categories.</div>
<div style="background-color: #ffcccc; color: #441111; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>What’s reason of alienation?</b><br />
Marx derived it from historical-economic relations, and claimed the ideology is false conscience. Heidegger's alienation means that instead of your life, you live according to media, advert, ideology. Then you are alienated to your own life, recognizing merely what is and nothing behind. The basic mistake is to think that by cognition of that 100 is 100, we cognize Being. This prevents us from awareness of we live in a space of freedom and responsibility. We behave thoughtlessly without feeling responsibility for our own actions, losing human dimension becoming an intelligent animal. It has nothing to do with 'irrational subjectivism'. Those critics probably meant Husserl's phenomenology.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #99ff99; color: #004400; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Algunos marxistas consideran el existencialismo como una irracionalidad subjetiva...</b><br />
No creo que los marxistas pudieran decir que sí. Sartre (1905-1980) y Jaspers (1883-1969), consideraron a Marx (1818-1883) como su antepasado directo. Junto con Heidegger adoptaron el análisis de Marx de la alienación, así como otras categorías.</div>
<div style="background-color: #99ffbb; color: #004411; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿Cuál es la razón de la alienación?</b><br />
Marx derivó de las relaciones histórico-económicas, y reclamó que la ideología es falsa conciencia. La enajenación de Heidegger quiere decir que en vez de su vida, se vive de acuerdo con los medios de comunicación, anuncio, ideología. Entonces estás alienado a su propia vida, reconociendo simplemente lo que es y sin nada detrás. El error básico es pensar que por el conocimiento de que 100 es 100, que conozcamos el Ser. Esto nos impide saber que vivimos en un espacio de libertad y de responsabilidad. Nos comportamos sin pensar, sin sentir la responsabilidad de nuestras propias acciones, la pérdida de la dimensión humana de convertirse en un animal inteligente. No tiene nada que ver con el "subjetivismo irracional". Esas críticas probablemente significaban la fenomenología de Husserl.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffaaaa; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-top-color: rgb(238, 187, 187); border-top-left-radius: 20px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 50px; color: #660000; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Husserl focused more on the things...</b><br />
...he was dealing with a cognition and its reliability. He claimed that scientific knowledge is maybe useful, but unreal. In Heideggerian language, philosophy and science cognize Dasein: a surface and its characteristics or inner relations, but nothing else. It is an idealistic position coming from Plato (427-347 BC). Husserl (1859-1938) expressed it by modern terminology similar to Kant's critique of the pure reason - only without using 'thing in itself'.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #99eedd; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-left-radius: 25px; border-bottom-right-radius: 25px; border-top-left-radius: 25px; border-top-right-radius: 25px; border: 1px dotted rgb(51, 51, 51); clear: left; color: #003322; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 10px; padding: 5px; width: 47%;">
<b>Husserl se centró más en las cosas...</b><br />
...que estaba tratando con una cognición y su fiabilidad. Afirmó que el conocimiento científico es quizá útil, pero irreal. En el lenguaje de Heidegger, la filosofía y la ciencia llegan a conocer a Dasein: una superficie y sus características o relaciones internas, pero nada más. Es una posición idealista que viene de Platón (427-347 aC). Husserl (1859-1938) lo expresó de la terminología moderna similar a la crítica kantiana de la razón pura - sólo sin utilizar "cosa en sí".
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffaadd; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-top-right-radius: 40px; color: #660033; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; position: relative; top: 35px; width: 47%;">
<b>Can be a perception of mentally ill truer?</b><br />
We can’t say our seeing is right. It depends whether our world is only our conception, as thought Schopenhauer (1788-1860) or Ladislav Klíma (1878-1928) - the base for which was given by Kant (1724-1804). We think according to our structure of thinking, but we can’t know if this structure shows the reality as it is. Neither European philosophy has resolved this problem, nor Plato where we perceive mere reflexes, mirrors, imprints of the reality...
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffaadd; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-right-radius: 100px; border-right-color: rgb(255, 170, 221); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; color: #660033; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 98%;">
<b>Puede ser una percepción de la mente enferma más verdadera?</b><br />
No podemos decir que nuestra visión es correcta. Depende de si nuestro mundo es sólo nuestra concepción, como el pensamiento de Schopenhauer (1788-1860) o Ladislav Klíma (1878-1928) - la base que fue dada por Kant (1724-1804). Pensamos de acuerdo con nuestra estructura de pensamiento, pero no podemos saber si esta estructura muestra la realidad tal como es. Ni la filosofía europea ha resuelto este problema, ni Platón donde percibimos meros reflejos, los espejos, las impresiones de la realidad ...
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #dddddd; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #777777; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: italic; padding: 1%; width: 98%;">
<b>Can we philosophically understand the logic of schizophrenia?</b><br />
Schizophrenics can do ritual activities like sitting behind computer, but they interpret everything differently. Their thinking is closer to symbolic world unlike ours. <span style="background: #ccc; color: #333377; display: inline; font-style: normal;">We know almost nothing about their inner life, except that they don't lose conscience in the hardest catatonic phase, when can’t move. Schizophrenic dreamed worlds could be deformed heuristic reality. It seems defective, but it can try to view relations in our reality more accurately.
<br /><br />
<b>¿Podemos entender filosóficamente la lógica de la esquizofrenia?</b><br />
Los esquizofrénicos pueden hacer actividades rituales como estar sentado detrás del ordenador, pero interpretar todo de manera diferente. Su pensamiento está más cerca de mundo simbólico a diferencia de la nuestra.</span> No sabemos casi nada acerca de su vida interior, a excepción de que no pierden la conciencia en la fase más dura del estado catatónico, cuando no se puede mover. Mundos soñados esquizofrénicos podrían deformar la realidad heurística. Parece defectuoso, pero puede tratar de ver las relaciones en nuestra realidad con mayor precisión.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 48%;">
<b>Wittgenstein thought such reasoning useless.</b><b>The problem is a language...</b><br />
If somebody deals long with logic, it can lead him to such conclusion. Nevertheless philosophy can’t be reduced to a problem or structure of language. And that the language means more than just communication, as Wittgenstein (1889-1951) concludes, was known long time.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #444444; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: white; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 48%;">
<b>Wittgenstein pensaba que tal razonamiento inútil. El problema es un lenguaje...</b><br />
Si alguien trata de largo con la lógica, puede conducirlo a tal conclusión. Sin embargo la filosofía no puede reducirse a un problema o una estructura del lenguaje. Y que el lenguaje significa algo más que la comunicación, como Wittgenstein (1889-1951) llega a la conclusión, era conocido mucho tiempo.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #444444; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; clear: both; color: white; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 48%;">
<b>Bajo el mismo nombre que todos pueden percibir cosas diferentes. Veo negro como se ve blanco...</b><br />
La percepción ya es interpretación. En este rincón tengo una buena orientación, sé dónde puedo poner mis manos, dónde están las cosas, etc. Una fotografía de este rincón mostraría algo completamente diferente desde mi percepción. Ver este rincón, la manipulación de las cosas aquí es una interpretación. Así que puedo cambiar la realidad de mi percepción.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #444444; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 48%;">
<b>Under the same name all can perceive different things. I can see black as you see white...</b><br />
Perception is already interpretation. In this corner I have a good orientation, know where can put my hands, where are things etc. A photography of this corner would show something entirely different from my perception. Seeing of this corner, handling of things here is an interpretation. So I change reality by my perception.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #ffeeee; color: #444444; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Being alone in the world, I could think anyhow. In the presence of others, my truth must be confirmed by them. How much is truth a convention?</b><br />
According to contemporary philosophical reasoning, especially in ontology, the role of observer is a lot bigger than before. Observer somehow co-creates the reality, when he or more people share the creator's persuasion. Today we see the world differently from scientists in 17th century, although sensually we perceive it alike.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #bbbbbb; border-bottom-right-radius: 40px; border-right-color: rgb(68, 68, 68); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 5px; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Estar solo en el mundo, que se me ocurrió de todos modos. En presencia de los demás, mi verdad debe ser confirmada por ellos. ¿Cuándo es verdad una convención?</b><br />
Según el razonamiento filosófico contemporáneo, sobre todo en la ontología, el papel de observador es mucho más grande que antes. El observador de alguna manera ayuda a crear la realidad, cuando él o más personas comparten la persuasión del creador. Hoy vemos el mundo de manera diferente a la de los científicos en el siglo XVII, aunque sensiblemente lo percibimos igual.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #ffaaaa; border-right-color: rgb(204, 51, 204); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 2px; border-top-color: rgb(170, 0, 170); border-top-right-radius: 15px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 3px; clear: left; color: #990000; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; position: relative; top: -8px; width: 47%;">
<b>That change is on the level of conscience?</b><br />
Yes. Although we can't feel elementary particles, knowledge that all comprise of them, tells us that our conception about the coherence of our environment is useful, but apparently only pragmatic truth. This problem is in science too. It is not the only problem, but it will remain one of the important ones. It became very actual, when against the Einstein's theory, still in its essence Newtonian, stood the quantum theory.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #bbbbbb; border-bottom-color: rgb(119, 119, 119); border-bottom-left-radius: 20px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 5px; color: #ffeeee; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 2px; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Ese cambio está en el nivel de consciencia?</b><br />
Sí. Aunque no podemos sentir las partículas elementales, el conocimiento de que todos forman parte de ellas, nos dice que nuestra concepción acerca de la coherencia de nuestro medio ambiente es útil, pero al parecer sólo la verdad pragmática. Este problema es en la ciencia también. No es el único problema, pero seguirá siendo uno de los más importantes. Llegó a ser muy real, cuando en contra de la teoría de Einstein, aún en su esencia newtoniana, se puso la teoría cuántica.
</div>
<div style="background-color: #bbbbbb; color: #444444; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>That time some scientists including Einstein (1879-1955) rejected the quantum mechanics.</b><br />
They had been fighting till the movement of micro-particles was photographically demonstrated throughout the 1950 and 1960s. We have not yet absorbed that the quantum physicists were right. The fact that the observation alters the observed object is more general. We try to determine how much it accompanies the whole knowledge. The ancient, especially Chinese, philosophers already knew about that. Philosophical problems are therefore timeless.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bbbbbb; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>El tiempo en el que algunos científicos como Einstein (1879-1955) rechazaron la mecánica cuántica.</b><br />
Habían estado luchando hasta que el movimiento de micro-partículas se demostró fotográficamente durante toda la década de 1950 y 1960. Todavía no hemos asumido que los físicos cuánticos tenían razón. El hecho de que la observación altera el objeto observado es más general. Tratamos de determinar la cantidad que acompaña a todo el conocimiento. Los antiguos filósofos, especialmente de China, ya sabían sobre eso. Los problemas filosóficos son, por lo tanto, atemporales.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ccbbcc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 51, 204); border-bottom-right-radius: 15px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 4px; border-left-color: rgb(170, 0, 170); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-top-style: dashed; border-top-width: 1px; color: #774477; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>¿De qué trata la filósofia china?</b><br />
Es específica, ya que no conoce la noción de Dios. La filosofía china hace hincapié en el proceso de transición incesante. Es una aventura sin límites, con determinadas normas de autorregulación, pero sin dirección, destino, es decir, nada en absoluto. Supera nuestra existencia invariable. Nuestra realidad, sin duda, se vive, sin embargo, no necesita tener sentido ni objetivo. Se puede configurar para un cierto período, no universalmente. A través de esta volvemos a donde Heidegger no llegó. Una pregunta es si soy adecuado para asumir esa responsabilidad. Nadie me obliga, y ocurrirá de alguna manera. Los budistas lo saben mejor...
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #aaffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-left-radius: 20px; border-bottom-right-radius: 20px; border-top-left-radius: 20px; border-top-right-radius: 60px; border: 3px dotted rgb(0, 51, 51); clear: left; color: #004444; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 1px; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>What's Chinese philosophy about?</b><br />
It is specific as it does not know the notion God. Chinese philosophy emphasizes the process of ceaseless transition. It is an unrestrained affair, with certain auto-regulation norms, but without direction, target, meaning, anything at all. It exceeds our invariable existence. Our reality is undoubtedly live, however it does not need to have meaning or target. It can be set for some period, not universally. Through this we return where Heidegger did not reach. A question is if I am suitable to bear responsibility. Nobody forces me, and it will eventuate somehow. Buddhists know it the best...</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bbbbbb; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(136, 136, 153); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 90px; color: #444444; float: right; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>Parece que nada nuevo aparece...</b><br />
A principios del siglo XXI, la situación es la misma que en todas las ciencias: nos encontramos en el principio. Como Newton (1643-1727) dijo: Estamos de pie sobre los hombros de gigantes. Llegamos al límite del paradigma clásico, llegando al espacio, donde no se puede utilizar. Estamos de nuevo en el comienzo, incluyendo espacios aparentemente cerrados, como la gramática latina. Nada de lo que era cierto en, digamos 1940, es válido. Debemos resolver esta situación, sólo tenemos miedo de tener poco tiempo disponible. Estamos algo confundidos, no es la primera vez en la Historia. Es desagradable, pero también muy optimista, volviendo a los tiempos, en los que todo empieza desde el principio.
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bbbbbb; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(136, 153, 136); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 30px; border-top-color: rgb(153, 136, 136); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 10px; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: sans-serif; padding: 1%; width: 47%;">
<b>It seems nothing new appears...</b><br />
At the beginning of the 21st century, the situation is same in all sciences: we are standing at the very beginning. As Newton (1643-1727) said, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. We achieved the limit of the classic paradigm, getting to the area, where it is unusable. We are again at the very beginning including seemingly closed areas like Latin grammar. Nothing, that was true in let's say 1940, is valid. We should resolve this situation, only we are afraid of little time available. We are at certain confusion, not the first time in history. It is unpleasant, but also very optimistic, returning to times, when all arise from the beginning.
</div>
</div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-GsnK4BxyUU?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe><br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m0R0kp5nwRg?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Naomi" style="background: #fee; border-left: 1px solid #331; border-top-left-radius: 25px; border-top: 1px solid #331; color: #333311; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; font-size: 15px; padding: 11px;">
<h1 style="float: left;">
Letter to Naomi...</h1>
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/letter-to-naomi.html" style="float: right;">Dec, 2010</a>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwjrvyFG2H-7-eMDSk5kLanAev_i_k3VzCq4ZY-AA6SsG1D-PFDFz8cKYePaxTbu_1PW2iHzln7xL9uTpjldOW6x5PQzSNI8qoVwJEG8dPBq_7O6b0zxkh3L1x9YGtMc4VMmCEByzky8/s1600/Me2d.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwjrvyFG2H-7-eMDSk5kLanAev_i_k3VzCq4ZY-AA6SsG1D-PFDFz8cKYePaxTbu_1PW2iHzln7xL9uTpjldOW6x5PQzSNI8qoVwJEG8dPBq_7O6b0zxkh3L1x9YGtMc4VMmCEByzky8/s1600/Me2d.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
Dear Naomi,<br />
<br />
Walking along the human skeletons inside of the Parisian catacombs, <br />
I'm aware that wherever u r, whatever u do, we remain like<br />
night and day, life and death, truth and lie...<br />
How could it exist alone?<br />
There has not been such actor yet to express my joy, or except<br />
me as a child watching falling laminas of the roses,<br />
collecting them into the sack put under my pillow.<br />
Happier than happiest?<br />
Foolish warmongers drumming to celebrate a 'victory'<br />
Hurting those without choice, never man 2 man, face 2 face<br />
The rats are braver...<br />
But could I be better (please)?<br />
Some believe behind something, is something, is something...<br />
While I see nothing behind us Naomi, neither in front of us, <br />
nor aside, nor above, nor below...<br />
Like a full cup through which water spills over...<br />
<br />
Is philosophy possible..?<br />
<br />
Miro...</div>
<div style="background: #331; border-bottom-right-radius: 25px; border-bottom: 5px solid #fee; border-right: 10px solid #fee; color: #ffeeee; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', cursive; font-size: 15px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 11px;">
<h1>
...letter to Miro</h1>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJ10sqe9Cbx4FBF9FwBLbCkBW4ICD5oT_I9Ox7SQq6QRmlpBoJ3Q1LByAw-KSyrSVLUo45d_5OZjhZXgaoGiebcjY_fefC3HusoQmwrqsp0MAAhTZbfv7183r1NpXxvlTwPqmLeNrqm8/s1600/NaomiD.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJ10sqe9Cbx4FBF9FwBLbCkBW4ICD5oT_I9Ox7SQq6QRmlpBoJ3Q1LByAw-KSyrSVLUo45d_5OZjhZXgaoGiebcjY_fefC3HusoQmwrqsp0MAAhTZbfv7183r1NpXxvlTwPqmLeNrqm8/s1600/NaomiD.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
Dear Miro,<br />
<br />
I'm promoting the acrobatic shows in Shanghai and Beijing,<br />
so I had no time to write you earlier. And then believe or not, <br />
I could not find a post office... How horrible!<br />
I hope u r already out of the catacombs, it's cold there, u could get flu!<br />
And if you don't see anything above, please visit our oculist, because <br />
right now so many people are standing on the podium above me, <br />
but I like it...<br />
I know you have always loved flowers, maybe you had been florist or <br />
gardener in your previous life, although not sure (just kidding)...<br />
You are philosophy, my tiny philosopher... <br />
And so brave.... braver than a rat :)<br />
<br />
See u soon.<br />
<br />
Kiss<br />
<br />
...Naomi</div>
<br />
<div id="Sentencias" style="background: #eef; color: #555555; padding-top: 10px;">
<b>Miro.Brada.The Trials 1996</b><br />
<span style="clear: both; float: left;">Daily Práca, one of 4 winners of the public literature competition Archa Snívavcov 1996</span>
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dw-OVicstgI/TvnkU3YKdxI/AAAAAAAAASQ/AG1sRVUPn1A/s1600/MiroBradaTrials.gif" style="margin-left: 20%;" />
</div>
<div style="background: #FCC; color: #777777; float: left; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 1px; width: 49%;">
<b>Meeting with my friend </b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>d'apres Descartes</b></span><br />
I met my friend in a garden with joyful birds' singing. He said: Politicians are still people.<br />
Me: Do you think so?<br />
He: I think, so I am...</div>
<div style="background: #FeF; color: #997799; float: right; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px; width: 49%;">
<b>Scientist as a concept</b><br />
Scientist has blue and green liquids in test tubes. Definition of a scientist: if he mixes up blue and green, it starts emitting smoke. The greater smoke, the greater scientist...</div>
<div style="background: #cff; color: #779999; float: left; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px; width: 49%;">
<b>The most important law</b><br />
Jim is idiot. Bob isn't idiot. Shortly after: Jim isn't idiot, while Bob is becoming idiot. We've just formulated the law of the persistence of idiocy...</div>
<div style="background: #eef; color: #777799; float: right; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px; width: 49%;">
<b>Verification of the hypothesis</b><br />
Nothing is certain, unless reconfirmed.<br />
Neither measurement in physics is valid, unless reconfirmed. So if a husband finds his wife's infidelity, it's untrue, till next verification...</div>
<div style="background: #ffd; color: #777733; float: left; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px; width: 49%;">
<b>Philosopher contra masses</b><br />
The masses say: philosopher is too rational, no vices. The philosopher logically disproved it, no mentioning his vices...</div>
<div id="Existencia" style="clear: both; float: left; text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/existence-all-i-know-only-i-know.html" target="_blank">The Existence: All I know, only I know... 1995</a></span></b><br />
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/existence-all-i-know-only-i-know.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xHf1YL1eW1Y/Tv0Ljoof_4I/AAAAAAAAAHw/0UcSFrkCkLk/s1600/Miro.Brada.Existence.gif" /></a>
</div>
<div style="float: left; text-align: right; width: 100%;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/BRATE-2" target="_blank">the article is also on the philpapers</a></span></div>
<div style="float: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">In 1995, as a student of psychology, I was drinking jasmine tea and writing an essay entitled 'Existence' (interim thesis). From the analysis of the self-consciousness, I concluded: </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">"All I know, only I know", because if YOU know 'what I know', only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know'', and if you know that '</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know''</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">', only I know that... etc </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">At each moment, I know more (I know that YOU know), or less (I don't know that YOU know that I know) - than YOU. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">The consciousness is so indivisible implying</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"> the permanent 'existential solitude' at the very bottom of each existence.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">The meaning of 'existential solitude' can be surprising. E.g., if there are more people (you, he, she, they...) the combination </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">of 'who knows what', and 'who knows 'who knows what'' vastly rises at each moment (and as time flows) implying 'existential divergence' </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">driving each existence further from each other. In contrast, avoiding society minimizes set of 'who knows what' implying 'existential convergence' moving </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">the existence closer to other existences.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">I also analysed paranoia (schizophrenia) via replacing 'YOU' with THEY:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">If I am realizing 'THEY spy ME', I know it. But do THEY know it? If yes, THEY know more than ME, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">if not I know more than THEY. So THEY never know, what I know (regardless of their technology).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Replacement 'YOU' by GOD gives a theological example: GOD (if exists or not) all knows, but I know that GOD all knows, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">and if GOD knows that I know that GOD all knows, I know that, etc. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Mathematically (using kind of calculus) I turned 'All I know, only I know' to a recursive contradiction, formally identical </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">to Ancient Greek paradox of liar (is lying liar lying?) or Zeno (before you reach point B you must pass its half distance, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">its half distance, etc so point B is unreachable), Russell's paradox in 1901 (does 'set of all sets excluding itself' contain itself?), </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">or some models of game theory.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">According to 'All I know, only I know' Descartes's 'I think, so I am' (1644), sounds: only I know that 'I think therefore I am'. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">But as I am realizing: 'I know that 'I think therefore I am'', I can realize that I am thinking. 'I think' and 'I know' are so mutually exclusive </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">or synonyms (Wittgenstein's language game), that's why 'I think, so I am' could be: 'I know, so I am'.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Related links:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><a href="http://noveslovo.sk/node/22645" target="_blank">Convergence and divergence of economics</a> (15 Sep 2004) - I applied 'existencial divergence' to economics via dependence of asset pricing and causality on expectations of future prices, and expectations of expectations (of others) of future prices... The more actors the more possibilities of 'who can know what', which leads to divergence / crisis, i.e. impossibility to determine the asset prices and causality (what causes what). And the longer the analysis (of prices) is lasting, the higher impreciseness of the analysis. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.inzine.sk/article.asp?art=8357" target="_blank">God knows that I know that God everything knows</a> (14 Feb 2002) - I applied 'existencial solitude' to analysis of the economic value - determined by so called marginal utility, when the value of the thing diminishes by its owned quantity: '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility" target="_blank">the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units</a>'. In contrast the motivation of 'collector' can be opposite - the value of the missing thing (from the collection) can be higher (or at least not less) than the things already in the collection... And the motivation of the collector can outweigh the marginal utility...</span>
</div>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<div style="float: left; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; padding-top: 20px; text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/new-aesthetics.html" target="_blank">'New Aesthetics"</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
<span style="background-color: #ffffee; display: block; float: left; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Look at the chess diagram below (or open its facebook link) to see the 2nd prize (I won) in the British journal The Problemist (1997), for mate in 2 moves with the cyclic change of key and 2 mates (try / solution). Composing the chess problems (I did) is a mental free-skating, gymnastic, choreography... The judge(s) ranks the best compositions according to their originality, intricacy, and economical construction.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3902481&id=191057181368" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaDJnFn0PQQZUc4aZeKV-BRexsZtWQkucCH8UJ3lZELZW_RyjZriRxkHo-R4dnwgUDZm-B2jLdQIMMlAZ72W3MOtTjbwzactOrkN03dlBfeFoUPjjObzaLnn3FoYsDd_ot6Cz_K85aUvk/s1600/Miro.Brada2ndPrize.gif" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">'How difficult to solve it' had been the first criterion for the best compositions. Later Italians G Cristoffanini and A Mari (en l'Echiquier Belge 1928) focused on the change of mates (new strategy) to produce reciprocal changes of mates - a double jump (AB-BA). A cyclic change of mates - a triple jump (ABC-BCA) prototype was composed by Slovak L Lacny (1949), followed by Scottish N Macleod (1950), followed by the 1st quadruple jump (1955) composed again by Lacny, etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Picasso had defined sort of 'new strategy' in cubism (Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907) changing the African masks' attributes. Likewise objects' metamorphosis by MC Escher (1898-1972), the time lines of Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), the discrete energy elements: E = hv, of M Planck quantum hypothesis (1900), the discovery of infinitesimal calculus (new mathematics) by I Newton and G Leibniz in the late 17th century, 'Epic of Gilgamesh' from ancient Mesopotamia turning the fear of death into (one of) the first literature's form(s), etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffffee; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">The "new strategy" coincides with the Chinese ceaseless transition (change), challenging the 'identity' relation on which the European science clings.The identity in equations of mathematics / chemistry / physics, is illusionary as the left hand side differs (by position, time) from the right hand side (Heraclitus Panta Rhei): P is not P. Understanding the "new aesthetics' behind the changes of the same units is a real personal revolution in thinking.</span><span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Am I exaggerating? <br />
Not at all (pas du tout)...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">MiRO BRADA, london, 4. MaY, 2010</span></div>
<div id="composicion" style="clear: both; padding-top: 15px; text-align: left;">
<center style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
<b>Chess composition and music</b></center>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
The idea of this 3-mover (below) came suddenly up as I was listening Wagner's Tannhäuser overture (1845).
I used to listen music - classic, jazz, modern, as I was composing chess problems.
From the classic I preferred Bach, Debussy, Schubert, Chopin, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart,
Stravinsky among others.
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
This symmetrical new-strategic 3-mover contains 2 variants of set plays with 2 solutions.
Mutual comparison of the 2nd moves gives: 3 x 2 change (<a href="http://superproblem.ru/archive/probl_v/V_Zagorujko.html" target="_blank">Zagorujko</a>), 4 paradoxes (2 <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/07/27/sunday-chess-problem-20/" target="_blank">Dombrovskis</a>, 2 <a href="http://www.chessnc.com/biography/person-1325.html" target="_blank">Hannelius</a>), 2 functions' changes (2nd x 3rd moves).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.rubriky.net/pravda/r1996/pr_94_95.php" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvLeCgAylN8lv8ya4Vzmh7fNfq9Hwus4zd35BorwlnrxJ9UD4JnqE6LwFGe3tgDqtJeY8HEvi8p7sAdD3011H4LT8A043HhCD7dLchEDFPfRzTlYOJ98LcPFEG4SrNLuznx0h5vhI1YcA/s1600/Miro.Brada_Wagner_3_mover.gif" /></a></div>
Juror Bedrich Formánek <span style="font-size: x-small;">President of the FIDE for Chess Composition 1994-2002</span> wrote:
<i>Excellent three fold three-mover, containing not only the tier change of the second moves of the white
in two variants, but also the threats' paradoxes, changes of mates and various changes of functions of the moves.
Motivation is not complicated, but engages by its wit (e.g. opening the lines via e6, opening Re1 by keys etc.).
The modern composition, whose symmetry I don't feel as a shortage.</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
At time of listening and composing that problem I did not know <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/dec/11/richard-wagner-tannhauser-opera" target="_blank">Tannhäuser opera</a>'s plot, but I felt its controversy (non-linearity), which was the impetus to my three phases' mechanism.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRmCEGHt-Qk" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSaX7zrlUxJnbzG8oqcMN92kMAj_b8sEIzIuHZlQHAsYKYIJdf4lSoVlnY_2webXK0WhR2rAgmwzKQkOLY22W_VbMokkNYLoRFge65JBpIZ8B_dXs-yz0ZpYpcQGnYtYlu6gmFH6CY0rU/s1600/Miro.Brada_Wagner.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" id=Nietzsche>Nietzsche being a close Wagner's friend saw potential of his music to rebirth a tragedy to fully affirm the life. He was read by writers </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Mann, Gide, Joyce... </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">philosophers </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Foucault, Sartre, Heidegger...</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">politicians </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Mussolini, de </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Gaulle, Roosevelt... </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">artists </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Dalí, Bowie, Björk...</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and his m</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">etaphysics of 'eternal return of the same' or 'superhuman' stands against the egalitarian morality creating 'bad' to blemish the stronger. But who is the stronger, and what are criteria?</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">'Whoever in power is stronger' is often untrue, e.g. was Galileo weaker than the authorities that silenced him? Were Galileo's ideas mere means to undermine the stronger authorities? Very few would agree... How then distinguish 'stronger' and 'weaker'?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">People can be equally strong (or weak) in many areas, but statistically same</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;"> person is stronger in one thing, while weaker or average in other. Is then a superhuman rather e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Sotomayor" target="_blank">J. Sotomayor</a> jumping 2.45m (1993)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;"> or business magnate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates" target="_blank">B. Gates</a>?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">Those considered best do not need to be best either. B. Gates made money from programming, when minority had a computer. What would Gates have done, being born in Africa? Clearly 'stronger' or 'weaker' depends on society permitting or denying 'superhuman'. It rather confirms Nietzsche's 'reevaluation of all values' underlying relativity. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">In <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power" target="_blank">Wille zur Macht</a></i> he disliked determinism and causality (past to future)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;"> dominated the natural science e.g. thermodynamics of </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin" target="_blank">Kelvin (1824-1907)</a>. He emphasized the will perpetually alters the finite state, kind of the 20th century quantum physics. At the same time he doubted 'probability' in exploration of the dynamic truth, which is contradictory. Then Nietzsche's 'superhuman' or 'eternal return' is similar idealization as Kant's thing in itself, Plato's idea, Rousseau's natural man...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">Nietzsche's philosophy is unfinished, because he did not express dynamics of his ideas </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">statistically (</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">mental breakdown is other issue</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">. </span><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-58497138435838915712013-10-22T16:11:00.007-07:002021-02-20T03:38:59.763-08:00Maximization of Uniqueness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: large; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GsnK4BxyUU" style="float: left;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aj00hsD0iKns2F9emZQp17DdbZ-ruCQD__v_mV5hvFsOIb1GuJFXkzHIH8ki7yOqqSSiaCfki-FONNMPI-OCqAtUdfLp5VEEwed9qmJegzF3P3pCORum3nGkaky9z28POGW1pzO1kb4/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso2.png" style="padding: 0; width: 70px;" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">
I developed the concept of maximization originality - a synthesis of economics and psychology - as a student of PhD in economics in 2000, redefining the classic utility concept. I published a few articles about that and other related concepts: Edison's economics, Redirection of talent, Convergence and Divergence of economics, Pay as you go system.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAMOO-2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAMOO-2.pdf" target="_blank">the article is also on the philpapers</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The richer you are the less equally rich or richer people.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The richest person is only one (= unique).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Maximization of richness or leisure (=the classic utility concept), maximizes the originality (uniqueness).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Doing an extreme sport, striptease, having tattoo, can have the same function as maximizing richness / leisure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So maximization of originality can relate any activity / motivation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Seemingly to be the richest is unique as to be the poorest... But the rich can easily </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">become poor, while the poor can hardly become the rich. So there is an asymmetry in </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">what is maximized, reflecting intelligence and opportunity... Without opportunity</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> even the brilliant person maximize irrationally </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">(=destructive behavior). So irrational behavior does</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">n't necessarily indicate insufficient intellect.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>John Stuart Mill</i> in Principles of <i>Political Economy</i> (1848) wrote that a commodity must be useful and scarce: the scarcer (= more original), the more precious. The evaluation of scarcity depends on opportunity and intelligence, determining time spent on affordable value:</span><br />
<iframe width="600" height="381" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bZgvwU3rf4s?autoplay=1" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<div>
<div style="font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">a + b + c … = Time, where a, b, c, …are affordable values / activities</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The utility can be defined as: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: center;">U</span><sub style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: center;">max</sub><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: center;"> =a*b*c*…</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Utility multiplies the values because they are independent (in terms of occurrence), and their overall occurrence (=probability) is then equal to multiplication of all their probabilities. So maximizing utility minimizes overall probabilities of all values. It is opposite to entropy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If there is only 1 possible value, it consumes all time, regardless of intelligence…</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For 2 values, we have this equation:</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">a + b = T</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">U<sub>max</sub> =a*b</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">By mathematical substitution: U<sub>max</sub> =a*(T-a) = a*T – a<sup>2</sup></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And derivation gives: T= 2*a, so: a = T/2...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In case of two affordable values, rational agents halve their time between value ‘a’ and ‘b’.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To illustrate, it is better to have 2 children equally healthy, than 1 child very healthy and another very sick. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It results from fact that a</span><sup style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">2</sup><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> is bigger than (a-x)*(a+x) =a</span><sup style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">2</sup><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">-x</span><sup style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">2</sup><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEGo5OxfADm0l7VeCaWNqDGFqy9iBpvkqGY07RAClZQirZ1gZVd14uaijAkApCMUGAtqIlqCMsyBbC6Bh5Va5UNoXxQKh9IXvi5gorJx0hwC5H3x2_HmZ9fS9Pt0pIRqWPy0X9Vy9jxv0/s1600/a2-x2c.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEGo5OxfADm0l7VeCaWNqDGFqy9iBpvkqGY07RAClZQirZ1gZVd14uaijAkApCMUGAtqIlqCMsyBbC6Bh5Va5UNoXxQKh9IXvi5gorJx0hwC5H3x2_HmZ9fS9Pt0pIRqWPy0X9Vy9jxv0/s1600/a2-x2c.png" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">
Maximization of originality: the law of values’ equity. Irrational e.g. drunk person may break law of values’ equity... To maximize originality the drunk person can make a striptease in front of public (= a+x) to pay a price at police station (= a-x).
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="600" height="381" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KCFcEipF1-w" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Motivation of a collector</b></div>
Law of values’ equity corresponds to 'smoothing consumption': a tendency to distribute consumption equally across all periods. Also it fits Marshal’s diminishing return of the same value (marginal utility, Principles of Economics, 1890): people prefer 5 lemons and 5 oranges (at same price) to 10 lemons or 10 oranges. But, for collector of oranges (or art), the orange hasn't a diminishing marginal value. At that case agent may 'overpay' such piece (contrary to marginal utility). All people collect something - pictures, paintings, stamps, experience, etc., and so the law of values' equity becomes law of collections' equity. Then analysis of motivation is more complex (realistic) to understand which value (and for whom) belongs to which collection. For same person, one thing may be in more collections (and collections can be in other collections), while it still may have value in itself...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Motivation of a figure skater</b></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Some people don't only collect, but also create things. A figure skater can't win by thwarting rivals' pirouettes, but by creating better one. Motivation is to create a collection to include other collections. A competition is so promoted to innovations' level. Philosophies try to define a collection of all collections. There is limitation when a collection of all collections can't include itself, as it would result in infinite recursion (=psychosis). It corresponds to Russell's paradox, or reveal motivation of Wittgenstein to define a 'pure' langue (collection of all collections).</span><br />
<br />
<iframe width="600" height="381" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kidMAnTwols" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: center;">
<b>Maximization of Uniqueness</b></div>
All motivations seek uniqueness (the lowest occurrence) within internal (intelligence) and external (opportunities) limits. In nature, to be healthy, satiated, attractive, smell good, etc is less likely than to be sick, hungry, ugly, smell bad. So maximization of uniqueness is opposite to entropy or randomness. The main principle is that overall probability of maximizing person multiplies across all independent activities (values): probability of to be healthy, pretty, rich, etc... Lack of opportunity may result in excess of one activity - e.g. intelligent person that can't productively materialize his potential, may become paranoid (the other observe you is unlikely, unique) or even psychotic. Deficient intelligence may also generate a special motivation: collecting empty sacks...<br />
Existentialism is seemingly other view without utility concepts, because after death, there is infinity times of nothing nullifying all motivations, values... But in fact people can't imagine / feel 'infinity times of nothing', it would take the whole life (and still not enough) to realize it. So current activities, motivations can't be nullified by 'infinity' as there is no infinity in real time. The existentialism is just one of tries to be universal collection of all collections, maximizing uniqueness. Also I maximize uniqueness by defining 'maximization of uniqueness' to explain seemingly incomparable motivations.
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">
At the end of 2000 as a Phd student of economics, I sent my paper to Journal of Socio-Economics, entitled 'Edison's economics and model of motivation', explaining also maximization of originality. It was rejected in the 2nd round because 'socio-economic element was missing', which was evidently untrue... My articles from 2001-2004, were quoted e.g. in 2 MA theses, 1 seminar paper:
</div>
</div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.iam.fmph.uniba.sk/studium/efm/diplomovky/2010/benova/diplomovka.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Application of game theory, psychology, decision under uncertainty, 2010, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">B. Benova, Comenius University, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics, and Information science</span></a><br />
<a href="http://diplomovka.sme.sk/zdroj/3118.doc" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Utilizing the Prospect Theory for decision of economic subjects, 2007, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">M.Rusnak, Economic University in Bratislava</span></a><br />
<a href="http://www.zadania-seminarky.sk/semestralna-praca/teoria-hier-a-rozhodovania/22544" target="_blank">Game theory and decision making, Faculty of management, Economic University in Bratislava</a><br />
<br />
Also I published interviews with economists e.g:<br />
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/china-and-india-can-dominate.html" target="_blank">Clive Granger (Nobel prize winner in 2003): China and India can dominate, Tyden, 2004</a><br />
<a href="http://www.respekt.cz/tydenik/2002/45/cina-zvolila-lepsi-cestu-nez-vy?issueId=708" target="_blank">The interviews from Czech weekly Respekt, with transition economist Gerard Roland, and William Baumol</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTn34QAQ9-_QFxEgwGio3eKJ91wukEaZdZqDQAdH_RGe8LCbEQYywz29OcS1-OObjLM5vgUrhGUIXsJ9ICOSkQa9ZvqPUtVvwI2cg9adiUWKYyfoaPGfr4FP1wX4Bw_mAy3GTmm6TKNLk/s1600/Miro_Brada_Economics_Models_2001.gif" /></div>
<br />
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Redirection of Talent</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
According to economics the talented pursue rent-seeking activities if can't pursue productive ones like technological innovations. Society flourishes if talent is in innovations. Rent-seeking, philosophical reasoning are mentioned as 'alternative activities'. I divided them to:
<br />
1) sophisticated: philosophy, chess composition, logical puzzles, chess
<br />
2) rent-seeking: litigation, financial dealings, etc.
<br />
3) pathological: neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis.
<br />
It could e.g. explain why Russia or socialistic countries with less opportunities were better on average in e.g. chess than Western countries. In 2003, I made an interview with an economist William Baumol about 'alternative activities' for the Czech weekly Respekt: <a href="http://blisty.cz/art/15031.html" target="_blank">The discrimination of blacks has increased the number of jazz composers</a>. In the interview Mr. Baumol admitted that the allocation of talent is a also psychological, when lack of opportunities may result in mental disorders. To utilize the potential captured in sophisticated alternatives could be redirected to more useful areas like programming. Chess composition could be also a new field - part of logic / mathematics at Universities: to develop logical thinking, functional programming. In 2002 I made an interview with Bedrich Formanek (President of FIDE for Chess Composition 1994-2002) for a newspaper <a href="http://noveslovo.sk/node/33276" target="_blank">Slovo</a> entitled: <i><a href="http://noveslovo.sk/node/33276" target="_blank">Myšlienkové krasokorčuľovanie</a></i> (Figure skating in thoughts). My aim was to confirm part of my psychological-economic research, classifying chess composition as a sophisticated alternative for people that can’t utilize their potential in profitable activities...<br />
<img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6-s-9OHPe6ve162RV-4dMJDSffw77k7i7ETwKuypGcrOpLTt1GoIjYsQ5XPwYPwYmcEPkio7BDWPdrYtM79zm6K3-h6Ow7WVNbce6Inp2OUkltHQEZOPYfxihvPjsAcFkNF_yFHi5w3I/s640/BedSmallero.jpg" width="640" />
<br />
Assuming the socialism limited people to invest their potential to profit, their pursue chess or chess composition as a sophisticated alternative activity satisfying their intellect... I found a link between living standard (GDP per capita), and success in chess composition (measured by prototypes in new strategic themes). There was a difference in the quality of prejudices (assessed by Questionnaire of Unbiased Judgement), when Western composers were more tolerant (similar pattern as people cured in psychotherapy), while Eastern Europeans were slightly less tolerant. It seems Westerners composed chess problems as psychotherapy, while Eastern Europeans sought status.<br />
Chess composition as an 'alternative activity' is a vulgar interpretation of market economy. In fact, it is more complex problem, as knowledge, education is part of public economics with externalities, spillover effects. Internationally the chess composition was / is especially in Europe, Russia, then USA and Latin America (due to European emigrants), India, Indonesia, some Arabic countries, and since 90s also in Japan. It has no tradition in e.g. China, Korea.</div>
</div>
<br />
<div id="Edison" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Edison's Economics</span></b></div>
<span style="float: right; font-size: 15px;">Kultúra, 1999</span>
<br />
<div style="clear: both; font-size: large;">
1) Edison carries hammers from the ancient factory. He thinks to easier his work. It slows him, so he is less paid and risks to be fired. What utility Edison maximizes?<br />
2) Edison's boss sees Edison is slow. It reduces his profit, so he should fire him, but he waits - thinking why Edison is slow. What utility Edison's boss maximizes?<br />
3) Edison invents a vehicle radically raising the output.<br />
<br />
In classic utility, Edison's thinking is investment, and the vehicle is expected value. Edison's boss represents society crucial to promote invention: temporary patent should stimulate it. Unpredictability of invention reduces its expected value: thinking is irrational (rarely results in patent). So Edison and his boss think regardless of outcome, having 'thinking in utility'.<br />
<br />
Economic formulas of behavior rather justifies power structure, than reflects reality. Newton's calculus is verifiable in reality, while variability of results in economics apologizes anything in politics. Economics has become a 'modern' religion, when obeying 'economic laws' raises expected utility (=karma, heaven...), while disobedience decreases it (=hell...).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYRV4EWbaHajKl61WF4zgtjOtetn0yjeiy0Kv1NYgstn2LC-KQELfK9d7prp8N4oVa6q0hAEwomyktk7B8uf8gjk-2x6ckbmJf9B4QzZorrEzy1cE4ra35BaV8xd-BCRkxl6yn6rdDkdY/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYRV4EWbaHajKl61WF4zgtjOtetn0yjeiy0Kv1NYgstn2LC-KQELfK9d7prp8N4oVa6q0hAEwomyktk7B8uf8gjk-2x6ckbmJf9B4QzZorrEzy1cE4ra35BaV8xd-BCRkxl6yn6rdDkdY/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.1999.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgayFnvWk5ElVMhb9RnmnGpsAuGqhcYmWoEnUeaFDRY090V731qkpq3FNweXZ3MUwGIeb4_qfIp5FnhgDSDLfGCAeRxfYYf7qSVCfQ4DkR3JHIrEoQZfZziM_qOpDXrjI_px8GlIXLkGRA/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.Einstein.1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgayFnvWk5ElVMhb9RnmnGpsAuGqhcYmWoEnUeaFDRY090V731qkpq3FNweXZ3MUwGIeb4_qfIp5FnhgDSDLfGCAeRxfYYf7qSVCfQ4DkR3JHIrEoQZfZziM_qOpDXrjI_px8GlIXLkGRA/s1600/Miro.Brada.Edison.Economics.Einstein.1999.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Convergence and Divergence of Economics</span></b></div>
<div style="font-size: large;">
<a href="http://www.noveslovo.sk/node/22645" target="_blank">The main idea of the article published 15. Sept 2004</a> (exactly 4 years before the fall of Lehman Brothers) was the mechanism of the market divergence, when people buy assets for future profits. Apart from financial market theory, when it is impossible to make a long-run profit (on average) without inside information, I identified another source of divergence: how many people may know about that I know what to buy / sell, with exponentially raising possibilities who and what may know. The more time spent by the analysis, the higher divergence, so economy based on uncontrolled markets cannot be even rationally analyzed, which inevitably results in uncontrolled bubbles of self-fulfilling prophecies reinforcing irrational expectations. Psychologically, the speculations that justify why people buy / sell asset (or commodity like house as an asset), drives people away from reality: people don't asses the real value of the asset (e.g. how it is useful or complicated to manufacture), but expectation of its future price (often manipulated by adverts: pseudo inside information). And the whole 'science' like marketing, financial markets..., serves to justify 'rationality' of the markets: 'experts' talking about raising or falling of assets's prices, 'economic growth'...<br />
Another article '<a href="http://www.jetotak.sk/ekonomika/pod-slnkom-je-najvacsia-tma" target="_blank">Under the Sun is the darkest</a>' deals with pay as you go pension system, transferring money from the young to old generation. It can be analyzed by overlapping generations model pioneered by Nobel laureate Maurice Allais. In comparison with 'pension accumulation system', the 'pay as you go' system has neither moral hazard nor dynamic inefficiency - overinvestment in some sectors. In addition 'pension private funds' investing money to assets, cannot provide long-run higher profits than interest rates in the banks - which means people could save money in the bank, instead 'private funds'. Aging population is used as an argument against 'pay as you go' system, but labor productivity raises too and the decline of labor population would decrease profits in the private funds too. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.noveslovo.sk/node/22645" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsS2N9O9uTETKB72oS-EI2Fe4W-XhBMF1ScyfYwpsYrCRv1qsKC8AlZlgYib8apegFU4npzi65QQ9lxBRGU2CkQWqZ13A7a732wvKXaaKHI_ydtgWcVP6MX6vYM7vN_UGOvfUk2r8C5ss/s1600/Miro.Brada.Convergence%2526Divergence.of.Economics.gif" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-72689102599819224832013-10-20T12:35:00.001-07:002015-07-10T07:19:01.750-07:00Theory of Intelligence and BIAS of the classic IQ method<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In 1999 I was doing psychological-economic research (supported by Open Society). I was testing various group of respondents with series of my own methodology (Test of Intelligence and Creativity, Questionnaire of Unbiased Judgement, Test of Expectations, Test of Abstract pictures, Creating verbal analogies)...<br />
Some results / conclusions were published in Kultura, OS, inzine.sk, Nove Slovo or Japanese journal Problem Paradise...<br />
Here I present part about intelligence and BIAS of classic IQ method.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/BRATOI" target="_blank">the article is also on the philpapers</a></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;">Theory
of Intelligence and BIAS of the classic IQ method</b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
A classic concept of the IQ tests admits just one solution. In Amthauer test (1953), the common sign of violet and elephant is life (or similar). But, the right answer could be also letter ‘l’ or singular, which are common for both violet and elephant. In the mathematical series: 1 2 3 ? There can be e.g. 3 justifications: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
1) addition of one (= +1), </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
2) function, y = x (see graphs), where x is the order of the values 1 2 3 ?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
3) function, y = x<sup>4</sup> - 10x<sup>3</sup> + 35x<sup>2</sup> - 49x + 24. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Although the all logics result in the same solution: 4, their intricacies are very different. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Those who discover more logics (in give time) hesitate - which logic is the optimal. Or they may consider the ‘right’ logic too simple, so they rather select unusual logic that can be ‘wrong’. That’s why classic IQ tests with just 1 right solution are BIASED excluding too intricate justifications. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uy77jFQX39tc0bsj4IE_jlwQ-fg_Hh8DJ58fRmyaGchARi3Ate7_wpkMvM5gIQ-Zf0ICf9OpdteAM_MpfpN3h4G1qbPsXPTuW4i91y-48lYDkQ_n9EStgE5bPlSPkFJaW8dBM0hbics/s1600/Justifications.Miro.Brada.1998.gif" style="position: relative; z-index: 100;" /></div>
<br />
<br />
The classic IQ test BIAS can be clarified by the proof disproving the identity.<br />
Languages reflect the identity between the words and their meanings, or all (mathematical, chemical) equations have ‘left hand side’ identical with ‘right hand side’.<br />
But probability of simultaneously occurring independent entities equals the multiply of their probabilities:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Event A: p(A)=1/a </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Event B: p(B)=1/b</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
if p(A) p(B) = 0 (= independence), then p(A) p(B) = 1/ab</div>
<br />
This leads to the paradox: if the probability of an entity is 1/a, where a is the sum of all possible entities, then the probability of another identical independent entity is 1/a<sup>2</sup>. So if two (or more) entities are identical, then their probabilities are not identical. Thus things cannot be identical, i.e. logic is based only on a convention.<br />
<br />
More generally, impossibility of identity coincides with the Chinese ceaseless transition (change), challenging the 'identity' relation on which the European science clings. The identity in equations of mathematics / chemistry / physics, is illusory as the left hand side differs (by position, time) from the right hand side (Heraclitus panta rhei): P is not P.<br />
<br />
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>BIAS of the classic IQ method</b></div>
<div>
Graduate Record Examinations test (1994) contains this task:</div>
Choose one of the five options:
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr><td>a) geyser : water
<br />
b) fault : tremor
<br />
c) glacier : fissure
<br />
d) avalanche : snow
<br />
e) cavern : limestone
</td>
<td valign="top">that expresses the same relation as the pair:
<br />
<b>volcano : lava</b>
<br />
<br />
The right answer is:
<br />
<b>a) geyser : water</b>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
The problem is that there are more correct answers...
<br />
E.g. e) cavern : limestone, could be also solution, based on the formal analogy,
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr><td>when cavern has one v (as volcano), and limestone has one l (like lava)
<br />
<b><span style="background: #faa;">v</span>olcano : <span style="background: #afa;">l</span>ava e) ca<span style="background: #faa;">v</span>ern : <span style="background: #afa;">l</span>imestone</b>
<br />
<br />
The more intelligent people usually discover more options, and then they can have
<br />
problem to decide which one is right. Although GRE tests (or other intelligence tests
<br />
based on one right) are valid to some extent, their construction is BIASED…
<br />
<br />
In my research (1999), I proved the BIAS of the classic IQ test via 2 tasks (about 600 respondents):<br />
Task 1) People invent a few analogies, e.g. ‘life : death = laugh : cry’<br />
Based on the words: ‘fire : .......... = darkness : ..........’.<br />
There were 2 kinds of the solution:<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><div style="color: blue;">
a) analogy of the meaning:
<br />
‘fire : red = darkness : black’,
<br />
‘fire : water = darkens : light’
<br />
‘fire : pleasure = darkness : melancholy’
</div>
</td><td style="padding-left: 75px;"><div style="color: red;">
b) formal analogy
<br />
‘fire : fire = darkness : darkness’
<br />
‘fire : darkness = darkness : fire’
<br />
‘fire : fired = darkness : dark’,
<br />
‘fire : erif = darkness : ssenkrad’
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
All invented the analogy based on the meaning (a). Only 5% invented a formal analogy
<br />
(b). This 5% minority achieved above average intelligence and originality, which means
<br />
people inventing infrequent solution are on average more intelligent.
<br />
<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr>
<td>Task 2) Example showed 3 words:
<br />
<span style="background: #fbb;">1. swam 2. chop 3. cut</span>, and categories grouping 2
<br />
E.g. category <span style="background: #fbb;">‘past tense’</span> groups ‘swam’, and ‘cut’,
<br />
and excludes ‘chop’ that is in the present tense,
<br />
<span style="background: #fbb;">‘work with wood’</span> groups ‘chop’ and ‘cut’,
<br />
and excludes ‘swam’, etc…
<br />
Then I asked people to invent such categories
<br />
(grouping just 2 words) for the words
<br />
<span style="background: #bfb;">1. rifles 2. revolver 3. pebble chopper</span>
<br />
Some answers are on the right:
</td>
<td style="padding-left: 25px;">a) <span style="background: #bfb;">gun</span> (1+2, 3)
<br />
b) <span style="background: #bfb;">singular</span> (2+3, -1)
<br />
c) <span style="background: #bfb;">letter r at the beginning</span> (1+2, -3)
<br />
d) <span style="background: #bfb;">letter o</span> (2+3, -1)
<br />
e) <span style="background: #bfb;">more than six letters</span> (2+3, -1)
<br />
f) <span style="background: #bfb;">one word</span> (1+2, -3)
<br />
g) <span style="background: #bfb;">metal, iron, steel</span> (1+2, 3)
<br />
h) <span style="background: #bfb;">modern era, prehistoric tools</span> (1+2, 3)
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The less frequent sign discovered the higher intelligence, which means the IQ tests
excluding rare signs, can’t detect too high intellect. The relation between intelligence
(and originality) and the sign infrequency is visualised in graph:
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEeGQFNbQEE_elXeJK5tfItHGn0uykFCwllcBOAMzgu9m5JP49f7l7MEo-7bvQLE7nDMYdKPlH3hSHpVFnw0NJ_fMe8Ue_4xHWlaUJ-LGvn-Hpnyb8KD9IHvHo-GpBkfpW0MYJeTKp7yg/s1600/Intelligence_IQ3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEeGQFNbQEE_elXeJK5tfItHGn0uykFCwllcBOAMzgu9m5JP49f7l7MEo-7bvQLE7nDMYdKPlH3hSHpVFnw0NJ_fMe8Ue_4xHWlaUJ-LGvn-Hpnyb8KD9IHvHo-GpBkfpW0MYJeTKp7yg/s1600/Intelligence_IQ3.png" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-78488150953828428672013-10-16T19:12:00.000-07:002019-10-24T07:19:01.138-07:00Chess Composition as an Art<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRACCA-7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRACCA-7.pdf" style="float: right;" target="_blank">on Phillpapers</a>
<img border="0" src="https://www.4prop.com/JSON/art/Miro_Brada_ModernArt.jpg" /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">At high school, I was good in mathematics, chemistry, but composing chess problems was harder.
Trying in my 17, it took me 6 months with breaks to do publishable compositions. My classmate showed me how to solve newspapers' problems.
Before I had thought it was as chess. Unable to understand it, I told myself: 'only entire idiots pay attention to such uselessness'!
Once got it, its combinations fascinated me. I was admiring problems of American <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd" target="_blank">Sam Loyd</a> or <a href="http://www.rubriky.net/praca/r1993/pc_1248.php" target="_blank">William Shinkman</a>,
thinking: more hidden solution, better problem...</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=37029" target="_blank"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm7tb4V6dOELLSKI29DBgTtGNS7-CM7Saj1YziWMHMC1FVaB2k5uP90_ExgOsESHCCHfuIZNp2vZrJqSDvkKAq0aQvZVXO1ungZyUmkZEwRcryyi4dMFIaemmLWoKZCJYDQjRV1a4Neiw/s1600/Sam.Loyd.1892.gif" /></a>
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px; list-style-image: url(data:image/png; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><b>Definition of two-mover, #2: </b>White to move and checkmate Black in two moves against any defence...</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<br />Composing was a lot harder than solving. Even simple problems without extra pieces (3 rooks, 2 queens...) were uneasy to do.
I tried to construct a tricky solution, as 'hard to solve' was the sole criterion for me.
After a few months break, in February 1994, as already a student of psychology,
I visualized a solution without a threat: mates happen because black must move (losing tempo).
And the same mate unusually repeats with different motivations.
Then I added extra units in the left top corner to confuse solvers more.
<br />A month later, I visited Bratislava's chess composition circle of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedrich_Form%C3%A1nek" target="_blank">Bedrich Formánek</a>
(President of the FIDE for Chess Composition), to show my jigsaws. The present composers couldn't resolve my problem easily, so used PC.
Bedrich said he'd publish it next week, without non-thematic units in the corner. I was disappointed, thinking it had been better (harder)
with the removed units, but pleased to be in newspaper <a href="http://www.rubriky.net/pravda/r1994/pr_2722.php" target="_blank">Pravda</a>.
Later, I grasped that anything extra to express idea, spoils a clarity. It is 'economic criterion' generally true in all fields, but only chess composition shows ideas with such a purity.
</span>
<a href="http://www.rubriky.net/pravda/r1994/pr_2722.php" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzaCcy1RbYIDlQqlo6VbkHq4FjoFgEXY8E-QOGL6WX6drp-J2p7f9Kv2zkvLmMNi1-ZsagL6gFfzHwHec0Chw1W_b2P4hvDvwxO_j4gnZCGYZzJMFQtzFBlWq11PEeObga2KjFu8F7cUI/s1600/Miro.Brada_First_Problem_1994.gif" /></a>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<br />Bedrich was sending me composition journals, where I read:
‘reciprocal change’, ‘cycle’, 'thematic’, ‘set play’, ‘paradox’, ‘new strategic’... All had seemed irrelevant till I compared 'try' and 'solution' in
one reciprocal change: 2 mates exchanged for the same defences: so beautiful! It is 'New Strategy', a mental figure skating or gymnastic,
defined by Italian <a href="http://chesscomposers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/june-14th.html" target="_blank">Alberto Mari</a> in <i>l'Echiquier Belge</i> (1928):
multi-tiers changes of mates, functions, motifs...
Chemist J. Crusats told me a moment he got it: “Oh my God! The world should stop to admire this!”
20 years after, composers have adopted it. 'Hard to solve' criterion has remained, the 'new strategy' has added the higher order logic.
Being depressed for a while because of my misapprehension, I've finally made ‘new strategic’ problems including the most intricate: cycles.
E.g. Mate in 2 in Dutch <i>Probleemblad</i>, is the cycle of threat and 2 mates against 1 defence (3 tiers, 3 paradoxes, 3 mates):
Ukrainian or cyclic le Grand. Next 2 diagrams are: reciprocal change in Mate in 3, and a total cycle of threat and mates (Shedey cycle)
in Mate in 2 with fairy units Grasshoppers, and my own rule redefining mate: Mate with a Free Field (MAFF). British mathematician
<a href="http://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/face_to_face_with_dr_cedric_lytton_1_533447" target="_blank">Cedric Lytton</a> named it so, joking it was:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=43262" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh70yKIjBtLmu1b0_lJ_gDFJqvnT5sF4abZUtOKdfoGKI8jMzXXIKJJ4Vg9URz93AnfwCjTImOh_ui8-kTox5VQcpsLeelM-WrBNY5PnUCLmGdlC3lL5ygA_aZndF4GdouG9da5JjE6y5w/s1600/Miro.Brada_Ukrainian_1995.gif" /></a></span></span></div>
<div id="composicion" style="clear: both; padding-top: 15px;">
<div style="font-size: large;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/#85985" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJOPY41sWgy2DIcqkRMLN4zTHw5b39Tie2Nrow9Fbw-1wkyZ3qB1aiE9HuPs7Hf7t_yMryXZuYCPwSzeh-98Ys8qrMKbQN6jVQR73MBHau77S5-O1aBeI7yZbE749xziXUr45kp-TYCo4/s1600/ajerdez1.png" /></a></div>
From 1994 till 2000, I made over 200 compositions, mostly reciprocal or cyclic shifts in Mate in 2, Mate in 3, helpmates, self-mates, fairies, winning
several international prizes. In 1995, I defined a new class of the rules redefining the mate: <b>MAFF</b> (mate with a free field),
<b>OWU</b> (one white unit in the black king’s field), or mating conditions: <b>AMU</b> (mating unit must be attacked before moving),
<b>UIA</b> (the same color unit must be in the activity of the mating unit).
The focus on the aim (mate), separates them from earlier fairy rules redefining units: Grasshopper, Vao, Pao.., or conditions: rebirthing unit (Circe),
paralysis of units (Madrasi).
The mate's redefinition opens the new infinity: mate with 1, 2, 3, ... free field(s), or mate with 1, 2, 3, ... black or white unit(s) around the king, etc.
Moreover the free field can be 2 (or more) fields from the king, or black / white unit may be 2 (or more) fields around the king...
It means: the mate is only one of countless options (set), like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number" target="_blank">irrational numbers</a> in mathematics.
And the same composition can be <b>anything</b> based on mate's definitions, conditions.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/#347036" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZlJo2zln5tiqFn-vFNXGHCMJkLdLg95ZzBkugDl50yT-3aXQPQWz6vvHPtTM_CV_VflhOs5GgV_Ptd_VQyP8s2MGHbiCy1CmJzoYeGlcKeGvCsmLlmZPSSorn7jO_1H4RF-Vl0Hgc51E/s1600/ajerdez2.png" /></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: large;">
In the article '<a href="http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/niifc_01.htm" target="_blank">New Ideas in Chess Composition</a>' (see appendix) published in American journal StrateGems (2001),
I summarized the new rules and introduced my last idea: <b>Quasi-Pseudo theme</b>, applying mate redefinition to the new-strategic theme itself.
The mating field is moved by one field (or as it is redefined) in respect to the 'same mating field of the same mate' in the other layer (phase).
It seems too deviating from conventions resembling abstract 'art'...
But it is still exactly defined, being so rather like Impressionism: a bit smudged line (=deviating logic) reflects the reality.
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_McYXGzI_vlSE8UEtnEti-SFNs7-4iFMQ04MGWb8rxdA4oAKRhQi6vI8ai-DaGv0WMT3zhyphenhyphenWtuwVIjhvrDd5VZUL-HAKVako03iLpVyVq96Gca0iZxCdROpFGLMIpfWH_DiN1WXUzjI4/s1600/BlueDancersMn2.gif" />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt0uID7FZubpYeJhQsFHUVBApwbizcHjOgAgcuvhM7U7kH-JOgyQQhxgWkC1qXtm2gQzsdAMKpAp2LOU0_4v9fU-YBnttit7rLIJirVBEXv1Mi26h8GpqnFhfau-RnimIo4ZFBd5Y2Rcc/s1600/Miro.Brada_Quasi_Pseudo_Theme.gif" style="margin-top: 10px;" width="400" />
</div>
<div style="font-size: large;">
Ceaseless redefinitions in chess composition could result in other arts or new computer science.
Why so to compose chess problems, and not to focus on something with higher socio-economic return?
And how chess composition could arise?
<br />
The chess problem (mansuba) arose in Arabic Empire, to bet money whether solvers resolve it.
In my Phd in economics, I studied a concept of alternative activities: rent-seeking, litigation, speculations.. pursued
by the talented, if productive fields are inaccessible.
The chess composition (or chess), could be kind of the alternative activity.
It would explain why Russia or socialistic states with less opportunities were more successful on average in chess / chess composition than West.
<a href="http://www.respekt.cz/tydenik/2003/33/van-gogh-byl-horsi-obchodnik" target="_blank">Czech weekly Respekt</a> (2003), published my interview with a renowned economist
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Baumol" target="_blank">William Baumol</a> about it:
<a href="http://blisty.cz/art/15031.html" target="_blank">The discrimination of blacks has increased the number of jazz composers</a>.
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEYYWwoUNHsRO0cQbZiKZyNRJJf17pvJJpn8bbN8JrmXDTOUAs3qzRW5SYjKG8gF5loqf099NvUfvttJU-T5sA39-GgsvYzIKsTwVePwGxpSKGkGEcnfGYyi4e2pyDNnP0SFXrTgBDlts/s1600/Mansuba.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEYYWwoUNHsRO0cQbZiKZyNRJJf17pvJJpn8bbN8JrmXDTOUAs3qzRW5SYjKG8gF5loqf099NvUfvttJU-T5sA39-GgsvYzIKsTwVePwGxpSKGkGEcnfGYyi4e2pyDNnP0SFXrTgBDlts/s1600/Mansuba.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggbpOpFPRG2hL_LoDImFQOLcvk4bml1l7y6qjquKnWLkRJJ445FlZOiLY1so6kjTDtBUMon_9JcahDzU7r5ap__NGMVdu2EhSQ-JiId_6a9dFC_EV0Q_hSBcY3j0DLxQVIcak5O2QHTNY/s1600/HighRenaissance.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggbpOpFPRG2hL_LoDImFQOLcvk4bml1l7y6qjquKnWLkRJJ445FlZOiLY1so6kjTDtBUMon_9JcahDzU7r5ap__NGMVdu2EhSQ-JiId_6a9dFC_EV0Q_hSBcY3j0DLxQVIcak5O2QHTNY/s1600/HighRenaissance.png" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: large;">
Mr Baumol split talent of entrepreneurs and talent of scientists / composers, while I emphasized the intelligence is one.
There is a difference between verbal and performance intelligence, but they correlate.
It is improbable a person strong in math, is weak in verbal or so called 'social intelligence'.
He admitted it, saying I should rather ask a psychologist.
I hid I was a psychologist that developed new methods to assess intelligence and creativity,
capturing a creation of logical series. I show the results and concepts, including explanation of psychosis, of my MA theses and grant research in:
<a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAPM-5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAPM-5.pdf" target="_blank">Personality Model</a>.
The problem with 'talent of entrepreneur' is that it statistically depends on social status too, when the poorer have a lower chance to be entrepreneurs
(or artists), regardless of talent.
<br />
In 1999, I tested over 600 people variously grouped (people in psychotherapy, artists, mathematicians) including chess composers.
There was a statistical difference in the quality of prejudices e.g: Western composers were more tolerant (as people in psychotherapy),
unlike slightly less tolerant Eastern Europeans.
It could say Westerners composed chess problems for its psychotherapeutic effect, while Eastern composers sought status.
Lack of opportunities and level of intelligence lead to 3 types of alternatives:
<br />
1) sophisticated: philosophy, chess composition, logical puzzles / games, chess
<br />
2) rent-seeking: litigation, financial dealings, etc.
<br />
3) pathological: neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis.
<br />
It was a part of my Phd thesis, published in Slovak weekly Slovo: <a href="http://www.noveslovo.sk/node/34602" target="_blank">Redirection of talent</a>,
later generalized by a concept of <a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAMOO-2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAMOO-2.pdf" target="_blank">Maximization of Uniqueness</a>.
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ejvFc5_qTkpWLC_E2wyjjJr2kCTxAA3I6s6sY13VGVSwvrGW1jDR-MuxJfSK4o-qfcoUSqv9wRSoQwoMI5vlhyrYt3Sj9Lm15qt2JQ4tEy3734aAmgtQ_lZGeL96auMjzw3cqeGl600/s1600/1prizePraca.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4ejvFc5_qTkpWLC_E2wyjjJr2kCTxAA3I6s6sY13VGVSwvrGW1jDR-MuxJfSK4o-qfcoUSqv9wRSoQwoMI5vlhyrYt3Sj9Lm15qt2JQ4tEy3734aAmgtQ_lZGeL96auMjzw3cqeGl600/s1600/1prizePraca.png" /></a></div>
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">
In 2002 I interviewed Bedrich Formánek (President of FIDE for Chess Composition 1994-2002) for weekly Slovo: <a href="http://noveslovo.sk/node/33276" target="_blank">Figure skating in thoughts</a>.
No surprise, he refused 'chess composition is an alternative', stressing its uniqueness and irreplaceability.
Bedrich was a key figure promoting chess composition via newspapers' columns, meetings, contests in Czechoslovakia and Slovakia.
Many Slovak composers have appeared, inventing sundry cyclic prototypes, including the first cycle: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacny" target="_blank">Lacny theme</a>, 1949.
I knew it might be offensive to say: 'people invest their talent to chess composition (or other things) as
they didn't find a way to make money'. But I've never said it was useless to compose or solve chess problems,
I just wanted to explore motivation.
</div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFmaZ1Ytkl5Nc4t8w90BGtGA3awvasB0zGv-YRNSfaLlQfWgimZX3JH54r_45mEBkbRjK_YBs8J6qteo8Gt4UFHC-NIFLnx9A0KWKiwWWlhTmu0hcfvmN4YvL-s_KcOfTsfb2uXY5sTuk/s1600/Formanek.png" style="border-radius: 7px;" /></div>
<div style="font-size: large; text-align: left;">
Sure, 'all maximize profit' is an oversimplifying interpretation of 'market economy'.
And a comparison of socialistic and historically richer Western countries seems politically biased too.
Not sure 'market economy' provides more opportunities. E.g. a very damaged Soviet Union in WW II,
was able to launch the first man in the space (1961), requiring a huge talent. Many underline backwardness
of civil production e.g. cars... 'Scale effect' in economics is: the bigger economy, the higher variety of products.
Soviet Union (1922-1991) had a lot smaller population than Western economies, so it couldn't develop sufficient civil production,
particularly if it spent resources on arms.
<br />
In spite of hysteria about 'communism' (that never existed, as it means: no money) or 'socialism',
the difference between 'socialism' and 'capitalism' is quantitative: what is allowed to own, with possible qualitative implications.
The more things (factories, banks, pensions, etc...) are privatized, the more capitalistic.
And, the smaller private ownership, the more socialistic.
But even the purest capitalism let something public e.g. air, language etc,
and the purest socialism let something private e.g. dress, dish, etc..
Some socialistic states could be closer to some capitalistic, than some other socialistic states.
E.g. former 'socialistic' Yugoslavia could be closer to 'capitalistic' France or Sweden, than 'socialistic' China.
And 'capitalistic' France or Sweden could be closer to former 'socialistic' Czechoslovakia than 'capitalistic' Brazil.
So, 'capitalism', 'socialism', 'market', etc insufficiently defines the system, containing all to some extent...
And it may be true there were / are less opportunities in Eastern Europe, but not because of 'socialism'.
In contrast, the rise of chess composition in socialistic states could be a spill-over effect
of the 'construction spirit' of socialistic ideology (emphasizing production and manufacture).
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.com.es/2013/10/blog-post.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1Bri7FHKl-VpwVEu4jTwJr_vmiNwZ5IwGMyL-scSrAQF9uTlka7wLCkCbgn6RQn3j8jqewaTpmtUo2ChLTbWjPd8c_osvadMEx6EsYuDIA-5r0CdwnnUQ3PoiN9qI4Z8YIlX-_26jWyA/s1600/MiroBradaLAcrobat2.gif" /></a>
<img border="0" br="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4gb9I3VUAU6tsisiSuLLqwz_3l0yG3LHQcXUGRUkXFuWovC_Q3MIN08hh7IG5CAo3CJZPYVI6_Rvmp5ctnHWojmtH85NvuJXP8-H8e92TYSgQXcEdlmIUxHhyECjgnaj1wpX3KXb-1xk/s1600/Swaying.png" /></div>
<div style="float: left; font-size: large;">
Chess composition has spread mostly in Europe, USA, Australia, Canada, Latin America (Argentina, Brasil), India, Indonesia, some Arabic countries,
and a few other (Israel, Cuba, Singapore), but no in China, Korea. It has been more presented in Japan since 1990s. Speculatively, it could be because of
economic stagnation, forcing Japanese to alternatives including chess composition (it would require data from other 'alternatives' to confirm).
<br />
Since the middle of 1990s the young started being less interested in chess composition in general, plausibly due to the rise of computers.
Like an invention of photography and video diminished the significance of painting, the computers and later internet redefined the art space.
Traditional art forms (incl. chess composition) lost its attraction, audience.
It was my personal case too, having a computer (as a teenager I had no PC), I ceased composing chess problems to start programming.
Knowledge of chess composition helped me to develop efficient functional programming system <a href="http://www.each.co.uk/">www.each.co.uk</a>.
And the principle of new strategy inspired me to create artistic video-animations.
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="317" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/154507806" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
There are 2 ways to preserve chess composition:
<br />
1) To accept it as a new field: part of logic / mathematics at Universities / schools, suitable to develop logical thinking or aesthetics.
<br />
2) To transfer it to practical things e.g. computer science, or more intelligible: visual art, literature...
<br />
<br />
A gradual loss of interest in chess composition since middle of 1990s, is a wider phenomenon inexplicable only by the rise of computer, as the quality of art in general (even the notion of the art) has declined.
Although computer and internet radically enhanced the ways to create (mixing image, sound, interaction...) and disseminate art, so far it hasn't resulted in higher art forms (or at least haven't been publicly recognized).
The sole criterion of art has become to commercialize a medial attention, no matter how achieved.
Classic criteria: novelty, intricacy, quality, are marginalized by stressing 'subjectivity' and its critics are ignored...
Duchamp's <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573" target="_blank">Fountain, 1917</a> seems like a prophecy: anything exhibited (getting attention) is art.
The situation isn't new as periods of high and low arts always existed.
Except talent, an opportunity must appear to enable a new high art like Renaissance in Italy, Impressionism in France, rock music in UK...
The new art may reappear, as a new 'inner' criterion arises. PC and internet opened new options, but the new criterion is so far unclear.
Software's functionality / style could be one, but commercialism overshadows its potential. It seems monopolization of the art market depending exclusively on adverts,
halts the new art to arise.
Prominent art critic <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/28/art-critic-dave-hickey-quits-art-world">Dave Hickey</a>
said (2012) the incompetent rich art buyers greatly overrated contemporary artists, adding: <i>"At the moment it feels like the Paris salon of the 19th century, where bureaucrats and conservatives combined to stifle the field of work.
It was the Impressionists who forced a new system, led by the artists themselves. It created modern art and a whole new way of looking at things.
<br />
...Lord knows we need that now more than anything. We need artists to work outside the establishment and start looking at the world in a different way – to start challenging preconceptions instead of reinforcing them."</i>
Likewise the art historian <a href="http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2016/03/18/actualidad/1458314006_007665.html" target="_blank">Harvard Benjamin</a>
complained (2016) that market became an exclusive criterion, distorting a real contribution.
</div>
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhjDp5JUE9bRKL9Ef7-QFWkEQ5y2xHoBQJ6Ogbun8n9XzOCd7VM5-A2RsyYvQ4saxklZLIPb_VjkaYoZvRtwqnLqL2nPePILaL6kxdGRC10AXAC6sz-cNw-4ckRfnVU79WsNR_2uQ9svY/s1600/Duchamp.png" />
<br />
<div style="font-size: 17px; padding-left: 50px; text-align: left; width: 450px;">
Dadaism's criterion is to reject all criteria. No surprise, it was politically linked with a radical left...
Anything presented in art galleries is art (i.e. money, politics stands above 'art').
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn_FZn1LfV8Kp_irQS_b2ihtKHg4bkrI91EFPUW55HZvHl3oOucntaXdzOQ0PU04wOcgH6LaPpBRmo3BqdX4fHcz_vbVC-Yrq_POoJ4evYfKN7uhPmRjs3WuwmsHwDds_E9IA2zwpo-vA/s1600/Modern_Art_Miro_Brada.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn_FZn1LfV8Kp_irQS_b2ihtKHg4bkrI91EFPUW55HZvHl3oOucntaXdzOQ0PU04wOcgH6LaPpBRmo3BqdX4fHcz_vbVC-Yrq_POoJ4evYfKN7uhPmRjs3WuwmsHwDds_E9IA2zwpo-vA/s400/Modern_Art_Miro_Brada.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="244" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wLo6Bjum2Wo" type="text/html" width="400"></iframe>
<br />
<div style="font-size: 17px; padding-left: 50px; text-align: left; width: 450px;">
<a href="https://twitter.com/kenandchelsea/status/395587275293081600" target="_blank">From Animation, 2013, Holland park, London</a>.
Unexpected figure's rotation, shifting colours, positions.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 17px; padding-left: 50px; text-align: left; width: 450px;">
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott%C3%B3_Bl%C3%A1thy" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqkubqoTHymuF2BvVdrnXXix5hhqnprmhMaYPkD_Uon8-apXYtefawhuhho4YGsSMEzNHat336S0ojiWaPIHqadmdhjr9kkQFtAtOp97Xg5-DRyYm51_TirRbHIhT8PfSCk9SHZWRzUQI/s1600/Blathy.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Many chess composers were very successful in technical fields - e.g. Hungarian inventor O. Bláthy.
Why he invested some of his time in chess composition, and not fully in inventing (with higher probability of economic return)?
According to <a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAMOO-2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAMOO-2.pdf" target="_blank">Maximization of Uniqueness</a>,
people tend to spread their time (investment) equally across various activities / values (according to their intelligence and accessibility), because
the total uniqueness is multiplication of all values. And t * t > (t - x) * (t + x) - where t is time spent and x is difference between times across various activities.
</div>
<br />
<div style="float: left; font-size: large; padding-bottom: 25px;">
<br />
The commercial success is a criterion, but only secondary, which is often interchanged.
Firstly, a real art must meet an 'inner' criterion (independent of market) and then, according to rules, deviate from it.
A figure skater must jump a pirouette to make it differently or add anything (e.g. extra pirouette).
A pirouette is a criterion, that must be satisfied (properly jumped). Otherwise it can't be counted.
And e.g. abstract 'art' has no criterion (pirouette), that's why it is a pseudo-art, although it is traded in large amounts.
Without a criterion, anything can be 'art', disabling a high art to be recognized.
An acrobat could, instead of pirouettes, make a striptease to claim it's unique, as no one had done it before.
But anybody can do striptease (it's trivial), while only few can jump a pirouette...
To do anything 'crazy', 'funny', 'creative', isn't enough to be art, regardless if it is 'authentic'.
<br />
The first criterion of art, results from a competition or comparison (zero-sum game in economics).
Figure skaters don't directly compete, but finally they are compared, according to quality of their performance, by jurors.
The criteria differ by quality: in football it is a number of goals, in gymnastics it is a intricacy, originality, style...
Football fans can appreciate nice combinations too, but the only criterion is a goal.
Higher arts define and meet a non-trivial criterion: a higher order logic.
Like mansuba (prototype of chess problem) defined the new criterion: White to move and checkmate Black in 2 (or N) moves against any defence.
It meets the chess rules, and adds the new more intricate criterion.
Then 'New Strategy' meets both chess and chess problem rules, and adds the new criterion: change of functions in different phases.
In general, art must meet predefined or newly defined criteria, whose quality determine the quality (highness) of the art.
<br />
The higher order logic in art is same as in science. E.g. a calculation of the
rounded or curved space (globe, ellipse, cos / sin, x<sup>n</sup> ...) needed a higher order logic of calculus capturing 'infinity'.
Earlier mathematics couldn't exactly calculate the curved space, as it led to infinite diminishing divisions.
'Calculation of the curved space' added a new criterion, promoting mathematics to higher levels.
<br />
A higher order logic (in art / science) arises when additional criterion is defined.
It adds a new logic to exiting one, increasing its intricacy (e.g. logical series: rotating & diminishing & alternating & etc).
It can't be discovered by computers, regardless of their capacity.
PCs (or neural network) beat humans in chess, because the criterion 'win' is calculable.
But PCs are impotent to compose a chess problem, meaningful story, music, etc.
They can generate a scheme, verify its validity, but can't determine its meaning.
A higher order logic like 'New Strategy', calculus, chemical equation, is created by a definition, not computed.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px; padding-left: 50px; text-align: left; width: 450px;">
British chess composer Jeremy Morse was a chairman of LLoyds.
Why he invested some of his time in chess composition, and not fully in banking (with higher probability of economic return)?
According to <a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAMOO-2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAMOO-2.pdf" target="_blank">Maximization of Uniqueness</a>,
people tend to spread their time (investment) equally across various activities / values (according to their intelligence and accessibility)...
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFv4hTHAqzUeHlQS4IPPIQzlyjH5WI9apkd3uS8w5MKoaK9DNrpSzoiabOu8KRuQLkz2ZdmjbjNYqejG4Wl23zMp4dc2Hvvn_P794m7ui2fadrLIJEK_bSo3skflBvhQ-dNYi8NZE1h1I/s1600/Jeremy.png" /></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #333355; font-size: 15px; padding-left: 50px; text-align: left; width: 450px;">
J. Morse, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Problems-Tasks-Records-Jeremy/dp/0571204546" target="_blank">Chess Problems, Tasks and Records</a>, 1995:
<i>"The chess problem is arguably the highest type of problem or puzzle. It is much older and more widespread than the draughts or bridge problem. It is not confined by language like the crossword puzzle. It is less abstruse than the mathematical problem. Furthermore, its artistic content is richer and more easily appreciated than in other types of problem. Formal and strategic patterns abound, exhibiting such ideas as thematic unity, economy, paradox, reciprocity, asymmetry, and so on. This explains why the chess problem has an exceptionally high ratio of composers to solvers. Sometimes indeed the artistic element overshadows the original puzzle element, although ideally both elements should be present and in good balance."</i>
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.kobulchess.com/en/problems/originals-2016/946-eugene-rosner-maff.html" style="float: right;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYqwN_tAd-XGafLRmO23n7apiwpK4S0XF_DdFdcOL2585ckSqez98X2sPJMiIy23ZMNnLt1Fs4_ZSEr9Jde9O86bwMsaGQGaqw3yzgKkCB_liaTdqCc-xLmMhjHx8LjxFXJRgcn4HOkWs/s1600/Rosner.png" /></a>
<a href="http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/spbo23.htm" target="_blank" width="500"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdLrT4fQmGOuJo48TVehXELBRE8JWMaan4GepAIDLTzV7X8w5E8aIMM9-WblQ0z-4xQ4zrgJHwJE1E7zz16YaAzuytZFdML9hCkRS4VMM91f7OWXb64v7MCS-PR8Uz85zCSBHMtUujr_c/s1600/MAFF_QuahJames.gif" /></a>
</div>
</div>
<div style="float: left; font-size: 22px; text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEf4Zh5h5kdyrfc-MnCCsxRBmPv9gaJbBjVA1l3USBrgx9Gitmz9CeTNriTlvfNBa1udS8bnscFip-GyBVFStYeyTeGIdQZgrtwj_2DoHwEyASa51OWRZu5nsyC_iR-1HH93u_W_i1KOk/s1600/StarteGems2000_a.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEf4Zh5h5kdyrfc-MnCCsxRBmPv9gaJbBjVA1l3USBrgx9Gitmz9CeTNriTlvfNBa1udS8bnscFip-GyBVFStYeyTeGIdQZgrtwj_2DoHwEyASa51OWRZu5nsyC_iR-1HH93u_W_i1KOk/s1600/StarteGems2000_a.png" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaD5CZsnLQlyDJYh1HxwiSo4sp8yeqE0WUJlYToh6ay3tvvdD6e3TFyoAHAKYv3PbUFJAhmwqNaXkBgBMYOi4dKVhnEZ1aYxOrjsIjFv_lr1GpWiEq3adETWz8CYqmDaFd6fGSwudo-0I/s1600/StarteGems2000_b.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaD5CZsnLQlyDJYh1HxwiSo4sp8yeqE0WUJlYToh6ay3tvvdD6e3TFyoAHAKYv3PbUFJAhmwqNaXkBgBMYOi4dKVhnEZ1aYxOrjsIjFv_lr1GpWiEq3adETWz8CYqmDaFd6fGSwudo-0I/s1600/StarteGems2000_b.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ODlniXZBl5Q2cqcKnOeNlLZw_OCvrOUV7exUcau4SxiOyZlkeY3yTTH9NNASVde6UVvofsdm8p8pRr8vNjl13k2YNbk2fLoa8eRhuaeB0Dt9CSAKsvNyqPrw31e5Am7LtmVCpxpGeok/s1600/StarteGems2000_c.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ODlniXZBl5Q2cqcKnOeNlLZw_OCvrOUV7exUcau4SxiOyZlkeY3yTTH9NNASVde6UVvofsdm8p8pRr8vNjl13k2YNbk2fLoa8eRhuaeB0Dt9CSAKsvNyqPrw31e5Am7LtmVCpxpGeok/s1600/StarteGems2000_c.png" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Chess composition and music</b></div>
<div style="float: left; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
Composing chess problems, I used to listen classic, jazz, modern music. From the classic I liked Bach, Debussy, Schubert, Chopin, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Stravinsky etc. Listening Wagner's Tannhäuser overture (1845), I've got the idea of symmetrical new-strategic 3-mover with 2 variants of set plays and 2 solutions. Comparison of 2nd moves gives: 3 x 2 change (<a href="http://superproblem.ru/archive/probl_v/V_Zagorujko.html" target="_blank">Zagorujko</a>), 4 paradoxes (2 <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/07/27/sunday-chess-problem-20/" target="_blank">Dombrovskis</a>, 2 <a href="http://www.chessnc.com/biography/person-1325.html" target="_blank">Hannelius</a> ), 2 functions' changes (2nd x 3rd moves).</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.rubriky.net/pravda/r1996/pr_94_95.php" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvLeCgAylN8lv8ya4Vzmh7fNfq9Hwus4zd35BorwlnrxJ9UD4JnqE6LwFGe3tgDqtJeY8HEvi8p7sAdD3011H4LT8A043HhCD7dLchEDFPfRzTlYOJ98LcPFEG4SrNLuznx0h5vhI1YcA/s1600/Miro.Brada_Wagner_3_mover.gif" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Juror Bedrich Formánek wrote: <i>Excellent three fold three-mover, containing not only the tier change of the second moves of the white in two variants, but also the threats' paradoxes, changes of mates and various changes of functions of the moves. Motivation is not complicated, but engages by its wit (e.g. opening the lines via e6, opening Re1 by keys etc.). The modern composition, whose symmetry I don't feel as a shortage.</i></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">At that time I didn't know <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/dec/11/richard-wagner-tannhauser-opera" target="_blank">Tannhäuser opera</a>'s plot, but felt its controversy (non-linearity), being the impetus to my three phases' mechanism.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRmCEGHt-Qk" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSaX7zrlUxJnbzG8oqcMN92kMAj_b8sEIzIuHZlQHAsYKYIJdf4lSoVlnY_2webXK0WhR2rAgmwzKQkOLY22W_VbMokkNYLoRFge65JBpIZ8B_dXs-yz0ZpYpcQGnYtYlu6gmFH6CY0rU/s1600/Miro.Brada_Wagner.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nietzsche being a close Wagner's friend saw potential of his music to rebirth a tragedy to fully affirm the life. He was read by writers</span> (Mann, Gide, Joyce...), philosophers (Foucault, Sartre, Heidegger...), politicians (Mussolini, de Gaulle, Roosevelt...) artists (Dalí, Bowie, Björk...), and his metaphysics of 'eternal return of the same' or 'superhuman' stands against the egalitarian morality fabricating 'bad' to blemish the stronger. But who is the stronger, and what are criteria?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">'Whoever in power is stronger' is often untrue, e.g. was Galileo weaker than the authorities that silenced him? Were Galileo's ideas mere means to undermine the stronger authorities? Very few would agree... How then distinguish 'stronger' and 'weaker'?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">People can be equally strong (or weak) in many areas, but statistically same person is stronger in one thing, while weaker or average in other. Is then a superhuman rather e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Sotomayor" target="_blank">J. Sotomayor</a> jumping 2.45m (1993)
or business magnate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates" target="_blank">B. Gates</a>?<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Those considered best do not need to be best either. B. Gates made money from programming, when minority had a computer. What would Gates have done, being born in Africa? Clearly 'stronger' or 'weaker' depends on society permitting or denying 'superhuman'. It rather confirms Nietzsche's 'reevaluation of all values' underlying relativity. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"> In <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power" target="_blank">Wille zur Macht</a></i> he disliked determinism and causality (past to future) dominated the natural science e.g. thermodynamics of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin" target="_blank">Kelvin (1824-1907)</a>. He emphasized the will perpetually alters the finite state, kind of the 20th century quantum physics. At the same time he doubted 'probability' in exploration of the dynamic truth, contradicting his re-valuation of values. Nietzsche's 'superhuman' or 'eternal return' would be then idealizations
as Kant's thing in itself, Plato's pure idea, Rousseau's natural man...
Nietzsche's philosophy is unfinished, because he didn't express dynamics of his ideas statistically (mental breakdown is other issue)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/new-aesthetics.html" target="_blank">'New Aesthetics"</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px;">
Look at 'mate in 2' below to see the 2nd prize in the British journal The Problemist (1997), for cyclic change of key and 2 mates. Composing chess problems is a mental figure-skating, gymnastic, choreography... Jurors rank the best compositions according to their originality, intricacy, and economical construction.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3902481&id=191057181368" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaDJnFn0PQQZUc4aZeKV-BRexsZtWQkucCH8UJ3lZELZW_RyjZriRxkHo-R4dnwgUDZm-B2jLdQIMMlAZ72W3MOtTjbwzactOrkN03dlBfeFoUPjjObzaLnn3FoYsDd_ot6Cz_K85aUvk/s1600/Miro.Brada2ndPrize.gif" /></a></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding: 5px;">'How difficult to solve it' had been the first criterion for the best compositions. Later Italians G Cristoffanini and A Mari (en l'Echiquier Belge 1928) focused on the change of mates (new strategy) to produce reciprocal changes of mates - a double jump (AB-BA). A cyclic change of mates - a triple jump (ABC-BCA) prototype was composed by Slovak L Lacny (1949), followed by Scottish N Macleod (1950), followed by the 1st quadruple jump (1955) composed again by Lacny, etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding: 5px;">Picasso had defined sort of 'new strategy' in cubism (Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907) changing the African masks' attributes. Likewise objects' metamorphosis by MC Escher (1898-1972), the time lines of Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), the discrete energy elements: E = hv, of M Planck quantum hypothesis (1900), the discovery of infinitesimal calculus (new mathematics) by I Newton and G Leibniz in the late 17th century, 'Epic of Gilgamesh' from ancient Mesopotamia turning the fear of death into (one of) the first literature's form(s), etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffffee; display: block; padding: 5px;">The "new strategy" coincides with the Chinese ceaseless transition (change), challenging the 'identity' relation on which the European science clings.The identity in equations of mathematics / chemistry / physics, is illusion as the left hand side differs (by position, time) from the right hand side (Heraclitus panta rhei): P is not P. Understanding the "new aesthetics' behind the changes of the same units is a real personal revolution in thinking.</span><span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding: 5px;">Am I exaggerating?<br />Not at all (pas du tout)...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding: 5px;">MiRO BRADA, london, 4. MaY, 2010</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div id="composicion" style="clear: both; padding-top: 15px;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<b>World Chess Composition Tournament of FIDE (1996-2000)</b></span></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" id="Matthews" style="clear: both; font-size: large;">
My 3-mover representing Slovakia was the 6th (from 78 compositions) at the World Tournament 1996-2000, for theme:
<i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The same line guarded by two black line-moving pieces (R+R or Q+B or Q+R). In at least two variations, self interferences occur on this line, either at Black's first move or at Black's second move.</i></div>
<div class="separator" id="Matthews" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">My idea appeared at one moment. Then I made the scheme in 30 minutes (in comparison, a few of my compositions took me 6 months). I used horizontal Rook + Queen line, interrupting (to defend) by black Knights, leading to intricate threat form of Lacny (or Dombro-Lacny, cyclic le Grand). </span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKIwRoNaIPnoNFhDMNYMEthYh6aHVrC7uXkBmii-z2VkS1wRey01PymJqjQQB4XNx-RlYTubuj-BEh_IgzaKm9R5a6jWl9vnrRQRHc4lfn7clC2ti7nGMNivdorxFgA0rKCIBX3cVqVmA/s1600/Robin+C.O.+Matthews.gif" style="float: left;" width="200" />
<span style="display: inline-block; float: right; font-size: large; width: 350px;">The British juror Professor of economics <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/finance-obituaries/7888512/Professor-Robin-Matthews.html" target="_blank">Robin C.O. Matthews</a> wrote: <i>I was a bit afraid that the stipulation might prove to be too narrow. However, the top ten or a dozen problems turned out to be very interesting and original. Their composers showed great imagination as well as technical virtuosity. They found ways of showing the theme that had not occurred to me at all beforehand. But anticipation took a heavier toll than usual; the existence of the predecessor squeezed some of the affected problems of the top 24 although they were by no means completely anticipated. The theme made for heavy positions - only 28 out of 78 entries had less than 21 units. Many of the entries were closely alike. There seemed to me to be little to choose in merit among the entries that I have placed lower in the award, and indeed between them and some that were not placed at all. A different judge would undoubtedly have produced a different ranking. My congratulations to the successful composers, and my condolences to the others</i>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Being the 6th among 78 world best compositions sounds OK, but I was disappointed, because it was the only cycle in the tourney. Prof Matthews was exalted by my cyclic shift, but didn't like its symmetry: "<i>it is an impressive achievement to show a cyclic le Grand in this theme, </i></span><i>but the symmetry rather reduces the interest"</i>. But cyclic shifts are often symmetric, as they are the most intricate form in chess composition. </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">E.g. one of the best new-strategic mates in 2: Lacny's 4-fold cycle prototype is symmetric too. However as in the figure skating or gymnastics, when jurors decide about the result, there is often a controversy about result. Mental activities, like chess composition, have no physical limits, and so there are more options than in e.g. gymnastics, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">which makes judgement even more difficult. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=54755" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="592" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjksWD-OH1rCmwUFOWbEanhmkU3RY0RYY5Jnz9xGbHI55TLCK6B7biQ2GNhS-8xTXDuMOtOQks1dQwrchxx7J5cAue3qcnhyUUnhamDeO4TpZF3gGykG7_6cmJfIXzo0aM9-BRHBcjRY5k/s640/WCCT+6.png" width="640" /></a></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>History of new strategy</b></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">German <a href="http://chesscomposers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/march-20th.html">Bruno Oswald Sommer</a> did first known reciprocal change in 1921, unclear if intentional. 'Swap of mates' or other new strategic elements had occurred before, but authors were unaware of it or didn't invent higher forms (reciprocal, paradox...). <a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=176505">Faulkner</a>'s reciprocal (1924) preceded Mari too, and could perhaps be intentional. Finally Mari's disciple Cristoffanini did 'reciprocal' before Mari in 1927. Anyhow, Mari was the father and leader of the 'new strategy'. Since the reciprocal shift, other new strategic themes have been appearing: combinations of shifts of mates, functions e.g. <a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=31509" style="text-align: left;">Dombrovskis</a>'s threat paradoxes 1958, <a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=27296">Vladimirov</a>'s key paradoxes 1977.
</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=32039" style="clear: left; float: left;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE3Yvg57RcNaNbEpv-GmaMXSCg4LOOaZckJbSmgPqZA8kKKb-7ivCHCMc7P7pJkd2kZeSMqlf1Y7iksC_D_oVEPHYAO3BdGnA1UoYr08HfW0e-kZFLNfTO_b_cSnL21lJ0inrRwqYHkk4/s1600/Miro.Brada_Oswald_reciprocal.jpg" /></a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="font-size: large; ont-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; float: left; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">'Swapped mates' preceded 'threat paradox' followed by 'key paradox', because a set of all possible threats (2nd move before black moves) or keys (1st move), is smaller than a set of mates (2nd move after black moves). So it is a bit statistically easier to change mates than threats, keys (change of keys are rarest with few ways to use key as a mate). Like <a href="https://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=1172&lngWId=5" target="_blank">the shortest path</a> shows: combinations exponentially raises by linear number of elements N!/2: more moves, more options (=easier to do). But too many combinations have opposite effect. So 'new strategy' thrives in 2, 3 movers, then its potential declines. The table shows selected cycles, year of origin, numbers.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1sSsidFaOcDiJZn5QbQTjCsAVIzOwKJeH2FdueVfyCbr2O91p2VQqjKXQGE6K6QX92OMbPUQmiACc88E8Jro_AlXeu_dWWbcdj8ULxEPScmFdwFrJZcQFUE4wjUuXafJo8lFZ6zaYH28/s1600/Miro.Brada_Selected_Cycles.jpg" /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="clear: both; float: left; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">To shift 2 mates, is easier than 3 or 4 mates. Like figure skater jumps easier 2 than 3, 4 pirouettes. Then it depends on a type (Axel, Lutz...), style, combinations, scenario. Physically less limited mental fields (art, science) offer more options than figure skating, gymnastic, etc. So it is harder to understand or classify. Except the most popular mate in 2, there are mate in 3, 4, 5..., studies, various stipulations exist too: self-mate, help-mate, fairy conditions...</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">In general, more options (bigger set), easier to compose. More intricate mechanism (more shifts) with less material (smaller set), better problem is. The style counts too: intricate schematic logic can be worse than simple elegant one.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvDkwAmsDdz3YQHSSw8fPG-38VQAT_UzvwEzyPiDnYqWguE8QthmiH1KhWTNGFSjazLMQUIY25ZjZuSKWmO3Tc5rUUYCWAjvVMD-YaSXS0i25Ncd2pbVw4w95WaBp1AfPt0CdWVzjne-o/s1600/Miro.Brada_Dombrovskis.Vladimirov.jpg" /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div>
<div style="padding-top: 20px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<br />
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<br />
</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">
</span>
</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-39506725178375647232013-10-16T07:56:00.000-07:002015-08-12T12:39:45.104-07:00From Animation, London: Holland Park, 18.10-3.11 2013<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://twitter.com/kenandchelsea/status/395587275293081600/" target="_blank">Kensington and Chelsea twitter </a>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; position: relative; text-align: center; z-index: 1000;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV-cwY6Cjy5eHNRwaLL2S27-g55H1WYUO25Gu-41OrP7Nx8CM4lYZzc-3hlkDb6ouCgmn7KAxQx7cDFsnNBpHMMMohJKQZSQoYGYtfLS2OypIdi3zpqCx1PV19EN1S-JqAvxH9Kk57wZk/s1600/A4_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV-cwY6Cjy5eHNRwaLL2S27-g55H1WYUO25Gu-41OrP7Nx8CM4lYZzc-3hlkDb6ouCgmn7KAxQx7cDFsnNBpHMMMohJKQZSQoYGYtfLS2OypIdi3zpqCx1PV19EN1S-JqAvxH9Kk57wZk/s1600/A4_poster.jpg" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The exhibition also included these video-animations:</span></div>
<span style="color: #000033; font-size: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #783f04; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am the best philosopher in London, but I don't care about philosophy...</span><br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-GsnK4BxyUU?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe><br />
<div>
<div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wLo6Bjum2Wo?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3BP0cEKjSGo?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m0R0kp5nwRg?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="Extractos" style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); border-top-left-radius: 5px; clear: both; color: #773b00; float: right; font-family: Arial; font-size: 17px; padding-top: 15px; width: 250px;">
<b>从艺术节选</b> <span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">20010-2007</span>
<br />
<b>Excerpts from the Art</b> <span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">2010-2007</span>
</div>
<div style="clear: left; float: left; width: 50%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08VdX-9iTsXzBKAQgqvZfeVAXZmuSk0MJSkb70c6mczGCOTpfgs-X9eK-GJNIxiFa6NK1GeZtRHNDNW6sSsbZ9szR5ZbbAzfZl1SoCo1pGr1J5Z3L6hPETT3XB45Y2ezueCa7qdsmQ84/s1600/NaomiPopArtMiroBrada.gif" />
</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); float: right; margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 5px; width: 250px;">
<div style="font-size: 18px; text-align: right;">
<span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; position: relative; top: -3px;">20010-2007</span> <b>مقتطفات من الفن</b></div>
<br />
The same reality can be viewed differently.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial; width: 250px;">
Cubism <span style="font-size: x-small;">Picasso, Braque</span> and surrealism <span style="font-size: x-small;">Dalí, Ernst, Magritte</span> look for the deepness of the expression or dreamy reality, Bacon reforms the deepness into malformations, Rothko’s abstractions attack the perception, and Warhol’s pop-art remakes the surface: 15 minutes of fame.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 250px;">
In parallel, there is a philosophical tradition of analysing: searching for the pure idea, thing in itself, authenticity of cognition, Dao (Plato, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze) or rather the focus is put on dialectics, experience, will, decision, utility, text, study, cogito, society, xxx (Heraclitus, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucius, Descartes, Rousseau, Yyy).</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); float: right; font-family: Arial;">
La misma realidad se puede ver de manera diferente. El cubismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">Picasso, Braque</span> y el surrealismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">Dalí, Ernst, Magritte</span> buscan la profundidad de la expresión o la realidad de ensueño, Bacon transforma la profundidad en las malformaciones, las abstracciones de Rothko atacan a la percepciones, y el pop-art de Warhol rehace la superficie: 15 minutos de la fama.</div>
<div style="background: #efd; border-bottom-right-radius: 15px; float: right; font-family: Arial;">
En paralelo, hay una tradición filosófica de análisis: la búsqueda de la idea pura, una cosa en sí misma, la autenticidad de la cognición, Dao (Platón, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze), o más bien la atención se centra en la dialéctica, la experiencia, la voluntad, decisión, la utilidad, texto, estudio, cogito, la sociedad, xxx (Heráclito, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucio, Descartes, Rousseau, YYY).</div>
<div style="clear: both; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="float: right; width: 60%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1Bri7FHKl-VpwVEu4jTwJr_vmiNwZ5IwGMyL-scSrAQF9uTlka7wLCkCbgn6RQn3j8jqewaTpmtUo2ChLTbWjPd8c_osvadMEx6EsYuDIA-5r0CdwnnUQ3PoiN9qI4Z8YIlX-_26jWyA/s1600/MiroBradaLAcrobat2.gif" />
</div>
<div style="float: left; width: 40%;">
<div style="background: linear-gradient(180deg, #efd, #ae9); color: #005500; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
Picasso, Braque pioneered Cubism <span style="font-size: x-small;">1907</span>, showing the object in different angles, evoking plasticity. Its novelty is HOW it is done, not WHAT it shows. Surrealism <span style="font-size: x-small;">1920s </span>randomly links objects, motifs leading to a new curved style, induced by Chirico <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888-1978</span>, mastered by Dalí <span style="font-size: x-small;">904-1989</span>. Surrealism innovates the content altering the form, while the cubist new form alters the content.</div>
<div style="background: linear-gradient(180deg, #ae9, #efd); color: #000066; color: #114411; padding-right: 15px; padding: 1px;">
Picasso, Braque foi pioneira cubismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">1907</span>, mostrando o objeto em diferentes ângulos, evocando plasticidade. Sua novidade é a forma COMO ele é feito, não o QUE ele mostra. Surrealismo <span style="font-size: x-small;">1920s</span> liga aleatoriamente objetos, motivos que levam a um novo estilo curvado, induzida por Chirico <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888-1978</span>, masterizado por Dalí <span style="font-size: x-small;">904-1989</span>. Surrealismo inova o conteúdo, que altera a forma, enquanto a nova forma cubista altera o conteúdo.
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
<div style="float: left; width: 60%;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_McYXGzI_vlSE8UEtnEti-SFNs7-4iFMQ04MGWb8rxdA4oAKRhQi6vI8ai-DaGv0WMT3zhyphenhyphenWtuwVIjhvrDd5VZUL-HAKVako03iLpVyVq96Gca0iZxCdROpFGLMIpfWH_DiN1WXUzjI4/s1600/BlueDancersMn2.gif" />
</div>
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 7px; width: 40%;">
<span style="color: #555555;">Возможно, самая впечатляющая импрессионистская живопись, по крайней мере не хуже, чем Подсолнечники Ван Гога <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888</span>, или Хокусай Большая Волна от Канагавы <span style="font-size: x-small;">1829</span>. Аналогично <i>кубизм</i>, <i>импрессионизм</i> обновляет форму: фрагментирование изображения, изменяющего</span><span style="color: #555555;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #555555;">иллюминат, окрашивать, изменяют размеры, пятнает...</span></span><span style="color: #555555;"> его части, чтобы перекрасить его снова.</span></div>
<div style="background: #eee; float: right; width: 40%;">
Perhaps the most impressive impressionistic painting, at least not worse than Van Gogh's Sunflowers <span style="font-size: x-small;">1888</span>, or Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa <span style="font-size: x-small;">1829</span>. Likewise <i>cubism</i>, <i>impressionism</i> innovates the form: fragmenting the image, altering <span style="font-size: x-small;">illuminate, colorify, resize, blur...</span> its fractions to repaint it again.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background: #ffeedd; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 1px; box-shadow: -5px 5px 3px #ddd; color: #998877; float: left; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 2px; padding-top: 7px; width: 61%;">
Identical things don't exist, not due to manufacture limit (Heisenberg's uncertainty) to produce EXACTLY same things, but because they have different positions, creation times. If probability of the first is 1/a, probability of the next is 1/a²
<br />
<div style="background: #998877; border-bottom-left-radius: 7px; border-bottom-right-radius: 2px; color: #ffeedd; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 2px;">
Choses identiques ne existent pas, non pas parce que la limite de fabrication (l'incertitude de Heisenberg) pour produire EXACTAMENT les même choses, mais parce que ils ont positions différente, autre moments de la création. Si la probabilité de la première est 1/a, la probabilité de la prochaine est 1/a²
</div>
</div>
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; width: 30%;">
<a href="http://mirobrada.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/interviews.html" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjie9UYfgoCYz3yeOblqQwTKhIr4Vk3Yjyn1mYmOM7sqJW_aHO_ze9CqnZi4ZXYTUi5HCmwU2bcWXwLw-Lke1GwklxqVAvIHQDNs-HylaX4bBTcSBerLeHAlBg0gn0wyMYoDqxZ9I8cq2E/s1600/This.is.not.Foucalt_Miro.Brada_2004_small.gif" /></a>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://jonaquestart.com/highlights-from-parallax-art-fair/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX5sRXIIjQoDlFfJ2I0qPiqyu6vIWuZCAsNmKakZrGS0qHYDBu62XXrSPuQdW3A27Ou25xs5agTUjRD8u6Ka9SNDuYjg2VcfjTk7hYjzDCblnZ04MHZqtDRaZkUfqBbJnx8cidzfIMQx8/s1600/Jonaque.Miro.Brada.2015.png" /></a></div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-38101651694429125712013-10-02T13:04:00.005-07:002015-02-12T06:49:46.463-08:00Evolution is true, if it is untrue...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
Evolution is, unlike religion, often presented as 'objective', 'scientific', 'atheistic'. But like religion, evolution justifies the power structure: 'those above' are (genetically) better adapted than 'those below', which intends to keep people obedient: amor fati. It is not so surprising that some religious people don't see a dispute between evolution and God (or bible). Personally I am not very interested in evolution (neither Big Bang) whether it is true or not. But couple of years ago I found out that evolution logic in itself was biased - regardless of mutations, natural selection, etc.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLo6Bjum2Wo" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-OgvMZ2NLGpoq7TKx28SeQoE4Nhv9ft7BMflq3_ZZzKWFyrxD6CpXA-7bzHgz3xh1eHsgv9HXtdiuGThH_nBftuf3RrkNJAoQnI3Ql54BCRlK5e1-9QEvIgvHxGeoW56Brb8f5mCwCNg/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso.jpg" /></a></div>
Evolution leads to this paradox: 2 people argue about evolution, one supports, another refutes. If evolution is universally true (anytime), the supporter MUST have an advantage over the refuter. The advantage results from better adaptability to environment (key criterion of natural selection). The truth (or what is truer) is closer to reality than untruth, i.e. the truth improves adaptation. Then the statement: 'evolution is true' is motivated by the 'evolutionary' advantage. So it is BIASED (if it is true). I.e. evolution is true, if it is untrue (then it may be unbiased)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It resembles Wittgenstein's conclusion in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus" target="_blank">Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus</a> (1922): "<i><span style="color: #38761d;">what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence</span></i>". I.e. evolution is true (unbiased), if we don't talk / know about it (then it may be unbiased)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also it corresponds to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox" target="_blank">Russell's paradox</a> (1901): "<i><span style="color: #38761d;">Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. </span></i><i><span style="color: #38761d;">If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, </span></i><i><span style="color: #38761d;">then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves</span></i>". i.e. evolution (=set of all sets) is true (=contains itself) only if it is untrue (=if it does not contain itself)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Evolution may be thought as statistics - i.e. it is valid on average, but momentary truth is unnecessary.But it can't be applied when evolution itself is discussed (if it is true or untrue). Otherwise it could imply: evolution is sometimes true sometimes untrue, which would mean evolution is untrue, as truth must be 100% true.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There have been cases when truth was / is disadvantage. E.g. was it evolution when Middle Age authorities burnt <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno" target="_blank">Giordano Bruno</a> (1600) ? Is war, economic crisis, nuclear waste, betrayal... evolution? Bruno, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei" target="_blank">Galileo</a> knew Earth circles Sun, not reverse. It was accurate unlike Middle Age dogmas, but it was disadvantage. Society (what majority obeys) is part of adaptability, although it may support lie or perversity. If the majority thinks (obeys) evolution is untrue, it is untrue, even it is true. If the majority thinks evolution is true, it is true, even it is untrue. Adaptability (key criterion of natural selection) depends so on the power being a sociological reason why evolution is impossible.<br />
<div>
<br />
Another way to doubt evolution is its lack of intricacy, when its principle: natural selection (with mutations) according to adaptability is too simple. If the simple repeats, it can speculatively explain complicated thing. It is however uneasy to prove, and has limits, when the simple can hardly explain something too complex (brain, eye, engine).</div>
</div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4OobGZFuim4?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-74953752413597198442013-09-29T05:37:00.000-07:002015-11-23T02:48:01.259-08:00This is not Foucault<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In 2004 I talked with philosopher <a href="http://www.czsk.net/svet/clanky/osobnosti/marcelli.html" target="_blank">Miroslav Marcelli</a> about legacy of Foucault and contemporary philosophy. Animation 'This is not Foucault', and film <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0R0kp5nwRg" target="_blank">Discontinuity</a> show Foucault's ideas. Finally I add a <a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRAEIT-2&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRAEIT-2.pdf" target="_blank">dispute of evolution</a> becoming 'atheistic' religion.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
the interview was published in 2004 in inzine, now submitted to <a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/BRATIN-2" target="_blank">philpapers</a></div>
<div style="padding-top: 35px;">
<div style="display: inline-block; float: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzlrYaKesh-ZNQ_WJq8u_hOiWYXTU5RjQpZhA9NNBoXFqbJg53XT3BPNcv_wXeYK3DC5KiAP2lmresLUs5WV_EQi2aFhjrIHnuIVaUtMs2qh27rMDqoiTqUl_Ha-mn5GgfAUPzQPjfx18/s1600/This.is.not.Foucalt_Miro.Brada_2004.gif" />
</div>
<div style="background: #B47F31; border-radius: 5px; color: white; display: inline-block; float: right; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; padding: 2px; position: relative; top: -17px; width: 145px;">
Identical things don't exist, not due to manufacture limit (Heisenberg's uncertainty) to produce EXACTLY same things, but because they have distinct positions, creation times. If probability of the first is 1/a, probability of the next is 1/a²
<br />
<div style="background: #EE6B54; color: #660000; padding-top: 7px; padding: 2px;">
Choses identiques ne existent pas, non pas parce que la limite de fabrication (l'incertitude de Heisenberg) pour produire EXACTAMENT les mêmes choses, mais parce que ils ont positions différente, autre moments de la création. Si la probabilité de la première est 1/a, la probabilité de la prochaine est 1/a²
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both; padding-top: 5px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Foucault and freedom of identity</span><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<b>You participated in Foucault's lectures...</b><br />
In 1981, I was attending Foucault’s seminars at College de France. His topic - History of Sexuality, seemed irrelevant to my traditional academic orientation. Everything changed after his first lecture.<br />
<b>What persuaded you?</b><br />
In his view the topic mattered to classic German philosophy. Foucault commented Kant's article 'What's Enlightenment?’ occupied by the same question: who are we, heirs of Enlightenment, now?<br />
<b>How he presented it?</b><br />
I witnessed thinking developing with all drama of unexpected continuations and reversals. It was not that kind of 'course' repeating year by year with the same conclusion. It was immediately clear, although this not big, bald man read the prepared text. It induced a need to oppose some of his views.<br />
<b>What exactly?</b><br />
I doubted ‘archeology of consciousness’ excluding non-linguistic aspects. Later Foucault left it, and several times very changed his way of thinking. He did not avoid criticism of his previous views neither present his work as completed. I'd add to his later ideas about power, self-reflection because people subordinated to the power still decide. Foucault in one of his last interviews said he was exploring freedom in all of his work.<br />
<b>The French had a passion for philosophy. Could Foucault develop his ideas in Russia?</b><br />
He was tied to the French society in a particular period, so it's difficult not only to imagine the Russian Foucault, but his appearance could be hardly repeated in France today. He was maybe the last one called «maître a pensée», master of thinking. It seems they don't need such masters nowadays. But his thinking isn’t restricted to this historic situation. At the end of his life he thought to move to USA, where his work is still appreciated.<br />
<b>What would Foucault say about society now?</b><br />
To speculate what Foucault would say is risky and paradoxical, as we’d have to empathize his thinking whose essence is not to empathize (in searching for answers) other thinking.<br />
<b>Being homosexual (died of HIV, 1984) what he thought of gay marriage, drugs, euthanasia?</b><br />
He demanded the equal rights including right to suicide, but did not consider himself a representative - sort of homosexual thinking, and refused any tries to develop e.g. homosexual art. He rejected the restricted identity, which could be also the identity of gay relationship. He wanted drugs being part of experimenting with own identity, but didn't propagate indulgence, instead he assumed ethic resulting from a need being master of self. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/m0R0kp5nwRg?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<span style="font-size: large;">Discontinuity and exclusion</span><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<b style="text-align: left;">Did Foucault’s criticism of universal concepts deny differences (in charm, intellect, morality)?</b></div>
Foucault does not deny differences, only questions conditions of their possibility. The differences transfer in our responses to judgements whose basis is however neither natural nor stable. It emerged in certain historical moment whose circumstances reveal interest to exclude those who differ.<br />
<b>Fools?</b><br />
There were times when the higher truth notifying the future was revealed through a mouth of a fool. How happened, that since Enlightenment a fool had been classified as a folly and got into enclosed institution? This question lead to the Foucault’s first great book: History of Madness (1961). He will ask such questions during whole of his life. Why is an idea once a deep knowledge, marked as a blunder?<br />
<b>Is historical, social, cultural, science evolution illusionary?</b><br />
Foucault doubted the progress of Western society that should be guaranteed by acquired privileges as scientific advance, humanistic base of law, progressive education. He was not the first critique. Psychologist Jean Piaget noticed similarity between Foucault's The words and the things (1966) and Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). <br />
<b>What was Foucault's contribution?</b><br />
He particularized steps and processes of preconditions. Episteme, the principle of power structure, notifies in an indefinite form, and then transforms itself to theory. The norm to supervise and punish had only gradually resembled a prison or school. These motions don't need to be overlapped by a story of unstoppable progress of modern society.<br />
<b>What's a message of Foucault's book This is not a pipe with a pipe's image?</b><br />
Foucault thought that Magritte's painting of a pipe entitled This is not a pipe, deviated from imitation that long dominated western art. Plato called such images - without predetermined pattern, simulacra and condemned their creators as producers of delusions. Simulacra can explain many phenomena of our contemporary visual culture.<br />
<b>According to Foucault, the power defines the “author” and its role, while the invention is secondary, irrelevant or an obstacle (e.g. Galileo). How was Foucault as an “author” defined?</b><br />
Foucault challenged the idea of „author“, as a source of hidden abilities and inspirations. Likewise Russian formalists or art historian Wölfflin thought that creator's great secret was an illusion. So Foucault's position belongs here too. <br />
<b>What was Foucault’s contribution?</b><br />
He was dismantling this illusion being a challenge for a thorough historical analysis of assumptions. The author should be decomposed and reconstructed according to different social orders, by relevant archived texts. As we see the result of study in archives, we can see Foucault closer.<br />
<b>He - himself authority - viewed the authority a power tool. Isn't it a paradox?</b><br />
Foucault taught us that history of thought of 19 century can be written without emphasis on the most recognized philosophers: Hegel, Marx. He didn't claim that power only represses us, and so we must release ourselves. He rejected the concept of punitive power, and understood its function to repress as well as create us. He just refused its innocent appearance. Power affects relation of teacher-student, which does not imply to remove the teacher. Understanding history of such relations transfers their character. <br />
<b>Why Bergson, Sartre, Foucault were so popular in France? </b><br />
Although Bergson was in a bit different environment than Sartre and Foucault, all these and similar thinkers, could interest public thanks to a solid system of education (philosophy was important part of high school in France), journals, later radio and TV. Philosophy could take advantage of its close link with literature, when Bergson and Sartre got Nobel prizes. Not last, it was a tradition of the French scientists to reflect knowledge.<br />
<br />
<div id="comunicacion" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Communication is not knowledge</span><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<b>Focus on impractical (linguistic, historical) issues can’t give clear answers. Could philosophy overcome it today?</b><br />
Situation seems new, but philosophy deals with it from its beginning. Do you think that Athenians didn't reproach Socrates impracticability? Or Descartes didn't know that people wanted final solutions? Philosophy sets us free from a belief that radical beginning starts right now. There is its tendency to historicise. It doesn't escape from the presence, only reminds its volatility. Philosophy offers nothing to those who hide behind still life of definite answers, theses, doctrines.<br />
<b>Internet opened the new space: chat, web media. Philosophy seems to be lagged behind...</b><br />
Computers and internet revolutionarily enhanced space to communicate, but communication isn't knowledge - although they mutually expect. Radical increase of communication doesn't need to radically deepen knowledge. Is art on internet more valuable than art in theatres, exhibition halls?<br />
<b>Is it true also for philosophy?</b><br />
Philosophy escapes neither from internet. Its concepts helped to understand the internet or related changes. E.g. Barthes hardly anticipated internet, but his concept of text as a net, is useful. Or cyberspace theorist Mitchell uses deterritorialization elaborated by Gilles Deleuze.<br />
<b>Nietzsche </b><b>inspired </b><b>German war leaders.</b><b> Can philosophy prevent itself from the abuse?</b><br />
Each idea, theory, book is exploitable. It can't be prevented by its replacement with simplified receipts, appeals. Philosophy justified some totalities, but doubted them too. Marx said: philosophers till now just interpreted the world, it is about to change it. Some thought it should be changed according to their own needs. Philosophy offers only understanding, as an assumption for an action.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Evolution is true, if it is untrue</span></b></div>
Evolution is, unlike religion, often presented as 'objective', 'scientific', 'atheistic'. But like religion, evolution justifies the power structure: 'those above' are (genetically) better adapted than 'those below', which intends to keep people obedient: amor fati. It is not so surprising that some religious people don't see a dispute between evolution and God (or bible). Personally I am not very interested in evolution (neither Big Bang) whether it is true or not. But couple of years ago I found out that evolution logic in itself was biased - regardless of mutations, natural selection, etc.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLo6Bjum2Wo" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-OgvMZ2NLGpoq7TKx28SeQoE4Nhv9ft7BMflq3_ZZzKWFyrxD6CpXA-7bzHgz3xh1eHsgv9HXtdiuGThH_nBftuf3RrkNJAoQnI3Ql54BCRlK5e1-9QEvIgvHxGeoW56Brb8f5mCwCNg/s1600/Miro.Brada.payaso.jpg" /></a></div>
Evolution leads to this paradox: 2 people argue about evolution, one supports, another refutes. If evolution is universally true (anytime), the supporter MUST have an advantage over the refuter. The advantage results from better adaptability to environment (key criterion of natural selection). The truth (or what is truer) is closer to reality than untruth, i.e. the truth improves adaptation. Then the statement: 'evolution is true' is motivated by the 'evolutionary' advantage... So it is BIASED (if it is true). I.e. evolution is true, if it is untrue (then it may be unbiased)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It resembles Wittgenstein's conclusion in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus" target="_blank">Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus</a> (1922): "<i><span style="color: #38761d;">what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence</span></i>". I.e. evolution is true (unbiased), if we don't talk / know about it (then it may be unbiased)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also it corresponds to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox" target="_blank">Russell's paradox</a> (1901): "<i><span style="color: #38761d;">Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. </span></i><i><span style="color: #38761d;">If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, </span></i><i><span style="color: #38761d;">then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves</span></i>". i.e. evolution (=set of all sets) is true (=contains itself) only if it is untrue (=if it does not contain itself)...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Evolution may be thought as statistics - i.e. it is valid on average, but momentary truth is unnecessary.But it can't be applied when evolution itself is discussed (if it is true or untrue). Otherwise it could imply: evolution is sometimes true sometimes untrue, which would mean evolution is untrue, as truth must be 100% true.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There have been cases when truth was / is disadvantage. E.g. was it evolution when Middle Age authorities burnt <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno" target="_blank">Giordano Bruno</a> (1600) ? Is war, economic crisis, nuclear waste, betrayal... evolution? Bruno, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei" target="_blank">Galileo</a> knew Earth circles Sun, not reverse. It was accurate unlike Middle Age dogmas, but it was disadvantage. Society (what majority obeys) is part of adaptability, although it may support lie or perversity. If the majority thinks (obeys) evolution is untrue, it is untrue, even it is true. If the majority thinks evolution is true, it is true, even it is untrue. Adaptability (key criterion of natural selection) depends so on the power being a sociological reason why evolution is impossible.</div>
<div>
<br />
Another way to doubt evolution is its lack of intricacy, when its principle: natural selection (with mutations) according to adaptability is too simple. If the simple repeats, it can speculatively explain complicated thing. It is however uneasy to prove, and has limits, when the simple can hardly explain something too complex (brain, eye, engine).</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-20389604308298675162013-09-12T13:51:00.001-07:002015-02-11T01:33:35.392-08:00Paradox of religion: Love Your Enemy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="341" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3BP0cEKjSGo?autoplay=0" type="text/html" width="560"></iframe></h2>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: purple; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Religion supposes another world after death: paradise / hell / nirvana / karma, etc...
We live in incomplete world, because there is other 'truer' world.
This replicates Plato philosophy (428--347 BC): behind something, is something, is something... till the pure idea (final judgment, karma, etc).
In contrast, 'I think, therefore I am' (Descartes, 1637), showed the reality independent of Plato's parallel worlds.
When I am thinking, regardless of what, 'I am' - whether there is or not 'truer' world.
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Religions' rules (e.g. don't cheat) increase chances of future paradise.
Expectation of future paradise may determine our current decision to obey the rules.
Hume's (1748): 'A preceding B does not need to cause B' evolves to:
'(expectation of) B may cause A now'.
It fragments our time whose fraction is always occupied by expectations:
Paradise is expected in future, and in future (e.g. tomorrow) paradise is expected in future, etc...
Forever expected paradise leads to the paradox:
Following religion to fulfill expectation of paradise, prevents paradise to exist.
To realize paradise, it is necessary to deviate, at some moment, from religion.
In other words, Jesus's 'Kingdom come' is not an expectation.
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #741b47; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Paradise - if exists - must be somehow present already now (maybe not fully realized). And the religion to (may) be true must leave Plato's parallel worlds for the sake of Descartes' one world.
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But it is a bit more complicated because: before understanding (or reinventing) Descartes, Plato's parallel worlds existed - otherwise Descartes' truer world could not exist. And at time of understanding of Descartes, it becomes Plato's 'truer' world without 'truer' world (=true idea).
Also Plato could claim there is truer world than Descartes, i.e. Descartes is not the last station...
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #741b47; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, Plato's parallel worlds exist till individual grasps or invents Descartes' one world (= true idea). And Descartes's one world exists till individual grasps or invents Plato's parallel worlds...
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #741b47; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #20124d; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It means Plato precedes Descartes and Descartes precedes Plato. To determine who is right, is like to answer: which came the first chicken or egg?
Thus Plato's and Descartes's views alternate with each other. Once Plato is
right, and Descartes may be expected, another time Descartes is right, and Plato may be expected...
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #741b47; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Analogically, paradise / hell / karma - is true or expected.
When it is expected (following religion) it can't be true.
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #20124d; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Breaking the rule is a chance to make expectation true, even though deviation (in itself) does not guarantee it will happen. It only opens possibility of paradise.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #741b47; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Miro.Brada</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-54248994431217506172011-11-26T16:50:00.001-08:002015-07-23T03:19:57.857-07:00The Existence: All I know, only I know...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xHf1YL1eW1Y/Tv0Ljoof_4I/AAAAAAAAAHw/0UcSFrkCkLk/s1600/Miro.Brada.Existence.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xHf1YL1eW1Y/Tv0Ljoof_4I/AAAAAAAAAHw/0UcSFrkCkLk/s1600/Miro.Brada.Existence.gif" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/BRATE-2" target="_blank">the article is also on the philpapers</a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">In 1995, as a student of psychology, I was drinking jasmine tea and writing a philosophical essay entitled 'Existence' (kind of master thesis). From the analysis of the process of self-consciousness, I concluded: </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">"All I know, only I know", because if YOU know 'what I know', only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know'', and if you know that '</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know''</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">', only I know that... etc </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">At every moment, I know something more (I know that YOU know), or something less (I don't know that YOU know that I know) - than YOU. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">The consciousness is thus indivisible implying</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"> the permanent 'existential solitude' at the very bottom of each existence.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">The meaning of 'existential solitude' can be surprising. To illustrate, if there are more people (you, he, she, they...) the combination </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">of 'who knows what', and 'who knows 'who knows what'' vastly rises at every moment (and as time goes by) implying 'existential divergence' </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">driving each existence further from each other. In contrast, avoiding society minimizes set of 'who knows what' implying 'existential convergence' moving </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">the existence closer to other existences.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">I also analysed paranoia (schizophrenia) via replacing 'YOU' with THEY:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">If I am realizing 'THEY spy ME', I know it. But do THEY know it? If yes, THEY know something more than ME, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">if not I know something more than THEY. Thus THEY never know, what I know (regardless of their technology).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Replacement 'YOU' by GOD gives a theological example: GOD (whether it exists or not) everything knows, but I know that GOD everything knows, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">and if GOD knows that I know that GOD everything knows, I know that, etc. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Mathematically (using kind of calculus) I turned 'All I know only I know' to a recursive contradiction, formally identical </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">to Ancient Greek paradox of liar (is lying liar lying?) or Zeno (before you reach point B you must pass its half distance, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">its half distance, etc so point B is unreachable), Russell's paradox in 1901 (does 'set of all sets excluding itself' contain itself?), </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">or some models of game theory.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">According to 'All I know only I know' Descartes's 'I think therefore I am' (1644), sounds: only I know that 'I think therefore I am'. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">But as I am realizing: 'I know that 'I think therefore I am'', I can realize that I am thinking. 'I think' and 'I know' are thus mutually exclusive </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">or rather synonyms (Wittgenstein's language game), and so 'I think therefore I am' could be too: 'I know therefore I am'.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="background: #eee; border-radius: 7px; border: 1px solid #aaa; color: #555555; padding: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.15em;">OBLIVION</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em;">If a talent can't be prevented from its manifestation, it's interpreted as a result of an excessive effort due to the 'inferiority complex': 'We could do better, if we want, but we are busy by life' (what a joke...). </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em;">It must be at the expense of something. The last chance is to isolate, to claim: U r 'asocial', 'oversensitive', 'fill in anything negative'... Sure, it's more complicated, the exclusion doesn't need to indicate a genius, and many talents earned their statuses. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.3em;">Or: everything is relative, life isn't about that, it's more evolutionAAry...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.35em;">Anyhow, we decide what's life about, not you. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em;">We r good, and whatever u do, u r bad... </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.45em;">Denying you with 'so much fun' attitude, hallucinating about 'love', 'friendship', 'significance'. And when the time comes - crying (under the pillow), but never because of you, never on your behalf. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.5em;">nEver evEr...</span></div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;">Related links:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><a href="http://noveslovo.sk/node/22645" target="_blank">Convergence and divergence of economics</a> (15.9.2004) - I applied 'existencial divergence' to economics via dependence of asset pricing and causality on expectations of future prices, and expectations of expectations (of others) of future prices... The more actors the more possibilities of 'who can know what', which leads to divergence / crisis, i.e. impossibility to determine the asset prices and causality (what causes what). And the longer the analysis (of prices) is lasting, the higher impreciseness of the analysis. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.inzine.sk/article.asp?art=8357" target="_blank">God knows that I know that God everything knows</a> (14.02.2002) - I applied 'existencial solitude' to analysis of the economic value - determined by so called marginal utility, when the value of the thing diminishes by its owned quantity: '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility" target="_blank">the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units</a>'. In contrast the motivation of 'collector' can be opposite - the value of the missing thing (from the collection) can be higher (or at least not less) than the things already in the collection... And the motivation of the collector can outweigh the marginal utility...</span>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-51895162604024080882011-05-29T12:09:00.000-07:002014-01-19T14:37:15.606-08:00Naomi Campbell: Pop-Art animation...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08VdX-9iTsXzBKAQgqvZfeVAXZmuSk0MJSkb70c6mczGCOTpfgs-X9eK-GJNIxiFa6NK1GeZtRHNDNW6sSsbZ9szR5ZbbAzfZl1SoCo1pGr1J5Z3L6hPETT3XB45Y2ezueCa7qdsmQ84/s1600/NaomiPopArtMiroBrada.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08VdX-9iTsXzBKAQgqvZfeVAXZmuSk0MJSkb70c6mczGCOTpfgs-X9eK-GJNIxiFa6NK1GeZtRHNDNW6sSsbZ9szR5ZbbAzfZl1SoCo1pGr1J5Z3L6hPETT3XB45Y2ezueCa7qdsmQ84/s1600/NaomiPopArtMiroBrada.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBt7ix7qvGjSYrmAUvK4tw6tv4PZi9jivaKOVnuSpB8KdZunhf33tnVy9ucG_NJF315BdD9SEWavFD-sSVmr5JIAssjF0ViR07ugo8Kh58px5WMIRWIH5uk9xYpqKhwyctcEjxJbzmieM/s1600/NaomiPopArtMiroBrada.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
The same reality can be viewed differently. </div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
Cubism (Picasso, Braque) and surrealism (Dalí, Ernst, Magritte) look for the deepness of the expression or dreamy reality, Bacon reforms the deepness into malformations, Rothko’s abstractions attack the perception, and Warhol’s pop-art remakes the surface: 15 minutes of fame.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 238, 170); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
In parallel, there is a philosophical tradition of analysing: searching for the pure idea, thing in itself, authenticity of cognition, Dao (Plato, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze), or rather the focus is put on dialectics, experience, will, decision, utility, text, study, cogito, society, xxx (Heraclitus, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucius, Descartes, Rousseau, Yyy).</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
La misma realidad se puede ver de manera diferente. </div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 221, 170); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
El cubismo (Picasso, Braque) y el surrealismo (Dalí, Ernst, Magritte) buscan la profundidad de la expresión o la realidad de ensueño, Bacon transforma la profundidad en las malformaciones, las abstracciones de Rothko atacan a la percepciones, y el pop-art de Warhol rehace la superficie: 15 minutos de la fama.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204); font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 3px;">
En paralelo, hay una tradición filosófica de análisis: la búsqueda de la idea pura, una cosa en sí misma, la autenticidad de la cognición, Dao (Platón, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze), o más bien la atención se centra en la dialéctica, la experiencia, la voluntad, decisión, la utilidad, texto, estudio, cogito, la sociedad, xxx (Heráclito, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucio, Descartes, Rousseau, YYY).</div>
</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-66115325531315635592011-01-01T09:11:00.000-08:002012-06-10T17:07:31.230-07:00Acrobat: cubistic animation...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1Bri7FHKl-VpwVEu4jTwJr_vmiNwZ5IwGMyL-scSrAQF9uTlka7wLCkCbgn6RQn3j8jqewaTpmtUo2ChLTbWjPd8c_osvadMEx6EsYuDIA-5r0CdwnnUQ3PoiN9qI4Z8YIlX-_26jWyA/s1600/MiroBradaLAcrobat2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1Bri7FHKl-VpwVEu4jTwJr_vmiNwZ5IwGMyL-scSrAQF9uTlka7wLCkCbgn6RQn3j8jqewaTpmtUo2ChLTbWjPd8c_osvadMEx6EsYuDIA-5r0CdwnnUQ3PoiN9qI4Z8YIlX-_26jWyA/s1600/MiroBradaLAcrobat2.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background: #003; border-bottom: 4px dotted #eeef33; border-top: 4px dotted #afa; color: #eeeeff; color: #ffeeee; font-family: Century Gothic; font-size: 13px; padding: 3px; text-align: left;">
<i>Cubism</i> pioneered by Picasso and Braque in the early of the 20th century, depicts the object from its different viewpoints, evoking 3D plastic effect. The novelty results from how it's done: the form, rather than from what it represents: the content.<br />
In contrast, <i>surrealism</i> primarily innovates the content incorporating the dream with its bizarrely associated objects, motifs, or unreal things like Dali's melting watch (1931), which presupposes the new photographic style, form taken from Chirico's <i>The Disquieting Muses</i> (1916).<br />
Thus surrealism comes up with the new content which alters the form, while the cubistic novel form alters the content.
</div>
<div style="background: #afa; border-bottom: 4px dotted #003; color: #660000; font-family: Century Gothic; font-size: 13px; padding-right: 15px; padding: 3px;">
<i>Cubismo</i> introdotta da Picasso e Braque nei primi anni del 20 ° secolo, raffigura l'oggetto dai suoi diversi punti di vista, evocando 3D effetto plastico. <br />
La novità viene da come è fatto: la forma, piuttosto che da quello che rappresenta: il contenuto.<br />
...
</div>
</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-4811051066750787702010-12-30T16:57:00.000-08:002011-03-05T12:14:40.967-08:00Blue Dancers: impresionistic animation...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_McYXGzI_vlSE8UEtnEti-SFNs7-4iFMQ04MGWb8rxdA4oAKRhQi6vI8ai-DaGv0WMT3zhyphenhyphenWtuwVIjhvrDd5VZUL-HAKVako03iLpVyVq96Gca0iZxCdROpFGLMIpfWH_DiN1WXUzjI4/s1600/BlueDancersMn2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_McYXGzI_vlSE8UEtnEti-SFNs7-4iFMQ04MGWb8rxdA4oAKRhQi6vI8ai-DaGv0WMT3zhyphenhyphenWtuwVIjhvrDd5VZUL-HAKVako03iLpVyVq96Gca0iZxCdROpFGLMIpfWH_DiN1WXUzjI4/s1600/BlueDancersMn2.gif" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align:left;padding-left:25px;font-family:Century Gothic;font-size:medium">Perhaps the most impresive impressionistic painting, or at least definitely not worse than Van Gogh's Sunflowers (1888), or Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa (1829).<br />
Likewise <i>cubism</i>, <i>impressionism</i> innovates the form: fragmenting the image, altering (illuminate, colorify, resize, blur, etc) its fractions to repaint it again.<br />
</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-3637555301153037882010-12-27T07:33:00.000-08:002012-12-24T07:23:52.785-08:00'nEw aesthEtics"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: #ffffee; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Look at the chess diagram below (or open its facebook link) to see the 2nd prize (I won) in the British journal The Problemist (1997), for mate in 2 moves with the cyclic change of key and 2 mates (try / solution). Composing the chess problems (I did) is a mental free-skating, gymnastic, choreography... The judge(s) ranks the best compositions according to their originality, intricacy, and economical construction.</span><br />
<div style="clear: both; display: block; text-align: center;">
click on the picture to open its facebook link<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3902481&id=191057181368" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qPw0nYOtpJCAwkdeJ0cbJuK32G6vTXiP0jJZfxcZtyfWJnCB6XNN1hroDBmTQvqx2RERvNv3kFor4mGUnwY-ApDfGU2U1Yxp-bS43BJniwFBjIjP8c1aDLi_BEjuEaL6vxnZ1ZB0KYw/s1600/NewAesthetics4.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">'How difficult to solve it' had been the first criterion for the best compositions. Later Italians G Cristoffanini and A Mari (en l'Echiquier Belge 1928) focused on the change of mates (new strategy) to produce reciprocal changes of mates - a double jump (AB-BA). A cyclic change of mates - a triple jump (ABC-BCA) prototype was composed by Slovak L Lacny (1949), followed by Scottish N Macleod (1950), followed by the 1st quadruple jump (1955) composed again by Lacny, etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Picasso had defined sort of 'new strategy' in cubism (Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907) changing the African masks' attributes. Likewise objects' metamorphosis by MC Escher (1898-1972), the time lines of Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), the discrete energy elements: E = hv, of M Planck quantum hypothesis (1900), the discovery of infinitesimal calculus (new mathematics) by I Newton and G Leibniz in the late 17th century, 'Epic of Gilgamesh' from ancient Mesopotamia turning the fear of death into (one of) the first literature's form(s), etc...</span><span style="background-color: #ffffee; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">The "new strategy" coincides with the Chinese ceaseless transition (change), challenging the 'identity' relation on which the European science clings.The identity in equations of mathematics / chemistry / physics, is illusionary as the left hand side differs (by position, time) from the right hand side (Heraclitus panta rhei): P is not P. Understanding the "new aesthetics' behind the changes of the same units is a real personal revolution in thinking.</span><span style="background-color: #eeffff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">Am I exaggerating? <br />
Not at all (pas du tout)...</span><span style="background-color: #ffeeff; display: block; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;">MiRO BRADA, london, 4. MaY, 2010</span><br />
<br />
<div>
<div style="background-color: #ffcc66; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 2px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 0px; color: #773300; display: block; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; margin-left: 50px; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 3px; padding-right: 3px; padding-top: 3px; width: 450px;">
<div style="display: block; font-family: Courier New;">
Poem according to the "nEw aesthEtics' <br />
(theme: reciprocal change of balls)</div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;"><b>ARE SWAYING</b></span><span style="display: inline-block;"><b>SA HOMPÁĽAJÚ</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">My balls are swaying</span><span style="display: inline-block;">Moje gule sa hompáľajú</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #ffbb66;">
<span style="background-color: #ffbb88;display: inline-block; width: 250px;">first in the front,</span><span style="display: inline-block;">prvé vpredu,</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #ffbb88;">
<span style="background-color: #ffbb66;display: inline-block; width: 250px;">second in the back.</span><span style="display: inline-block;">druhé vzadu.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">And even when they line up</span><span style="display: inline-block;">a aj keď sa vyrovnajú</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">even then they are swaying.</span><span style="display: inline-block;">stále sa pritom hompáľajú.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">And what if they are exchanging?</span><span style="display: inline-block;">a čo keď sa vymieňajú?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #ffbb88;">
<span style="background-color: #ffbb66;display: inline-block; width: 250px;">Second in the front,</span><span style="display: inline-block;">druhé vpredu,</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #ffbb66;">
<span style="background-color: #ffbb88;display: inline-block; width: 250px;">first in the back.</span><span style="display: inline-block;">prvé vzadu.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">Are they still swaying?</span><span style="display: inline-block;">aj pritom sa hompáľajú?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; width: 250px;">...they are swaying...</span><span style="display: inline-block;">hompáľajú sa...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="display: inline-block; padding-bottom: 7px; width: 250px;">swaying they are...</span><span style="display: inline-block;">...sa hompáľajú</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #ffeedd; display: block; font-family: 'Courier New';">
Miro Brada, Brussels, March 2008 <br />
Morning, 2 hours before I visited Rene Magritte's house.</div>
</div>
<br />
Some of my other chess problems:
<br />
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=3105" target="_blank">Mate in 2, 3rd HM, The Problemist, 1998, (Cyclic le Grand / Ukraine theme) </a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=54755" target="_blank">Mate in 3, 6th place, World Chess Composition Tournament, 1998, the sole threemover of the tourney with the cyclic theme (Cyclic threat form of Lacny / Shedey theme)</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.yacpdb.org/?id=43262" target="_blank">Mate in 2, 2nd Comm, Probleemblad, 1995, (Cyclic le Grand / Ukraine theme)</a><br />
<br />
In 1995 I defined the new type of fairy chess conditions redefining a mate, e.g. MAFF (mate with a free field), OWU (mate with just one white unit), later I also defined quasi-pseudo theme redefining the theme as such (reciprocal change, cyclic change, etc):<br />
<a href="http://jurajlorinc.com/chess/niifc_01.htm" target="_blank">New ideas in Chess compositions</a> (summarized in American journal StrateGems in 2000)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-14876768853563696692010-12-23T16:26:00.000-08:002012-02-09T16:54:14.254-08:00The Trials / Les Jugements<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="background: #eef; color: #555555;">
<b>Miro.Brada.The Trials (the aphorisms published in journal Práca, 1996)</b></div>
<div style="background: #FCC; color: #777777; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 1px;">
<b>Meeting with my friend (d'apres Descartes)</b><br />
I met my friend in the garden with joyful birds' singing.<br />
He said: 'Even politicians are people...'<br />
Me: 'Do you think so?'<br />
He: 'I think, therefore I am...'</div>
<div style="background: #FeF; color: #997799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Scientist as a concept</b><br />
Scientist is one who has blue and green liquids in his test tubes.<br />
Definition of the scientist: if he mixes up the blue with green, it starts emitting smoke there.<br />
Greatness of the scientist: the greater smoke, the greater scientist...</div>
<div style="background: #cff; color: #779999; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>The most important law</b><br />
Joseph is idiot. John is not idiot.<br />
Shortly after: Joseph is not idiot, and at the same moment, John is becoming idiot.<br />
We have just formulated the law of the conservation of idiocy...</div>
<div style="background: #eef; color: #777799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Verification of the hypothesis</b><br />
Nothing is certain, unless reconfirmed.<br />
Neither measurement in physics is valid, unless reconfirmed.<br />
And so if a husband discovers his wife's infidelity, it's untrue,<br />
until the second verification confirms that...</div>
<div style="background: #ffd; color: #777733; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Philosopher contra masses</b><br />
The masses assert: a philosopher is biased, bounded - too rational, without the vices.<br />
But the philosopher logically disproved it, without mentioning his vices...</div>
<div style="background: #adf; color: #335577; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Oddity</b><br />
He loved her madly. She left him.<br />
He couldn't come to terms with it.<br />
Finally, he came to terms with it.<br />
He realized, he hadn't loved her.<br />
Otherwise he wouldn't come to terms with it.<br />
He shot himself by accident.</div>
<div style="background: #fda; color: #aa7755; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Secret of Depression</b><br />
He heard, it is not good to be too intelligent.<br />
Because many intelligent people suffer from depression.<br />
Next day, he got unexplainable depression.</div>
<div style="background: #fae; color: #bb55ab; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Acumen</b><br />
Intelligence resides in speed, nothing else.<br />
The faster we discern something, the more intelligent it is.<br />
Please note, I am first discerning such exact dependence of intelligence, but satire too.</div>
<div style="background: #efb; color: #aabb33; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Opening of the conference</b><br />
A memory of my old friend got stuck in my head.<br />
Of a man, who got paid for his sincerity.<br />
They challenged him to open the conference about a serious issue.<br />
He got up and said:<br />
"We are all, as sitting here, lying. Talking about things we scorn.<br />
Nothing would happen, if we'd not be sitting here, and I'd be silent.<br />
Do you think, these speeches express reality?<br />
Or, it is not about that. It is boring here.<br />
Will this conference change anything on our death?"<br />
Then he debouched himself into the axle grease.</div>
<div style="background: #afa; color: #44cc44; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Inner voice of the drunkard</b><br />
Tie on only to attainable goals.<br />
Don't tie yourself to anything unrealistic.<br />
Tie one on...</div>
<div style="background: #FeF; color: #997799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Проверка гипотезы</b><br />
Ничего неопределенно если не потвержденно.<br />
Даже измерения в физике недействительны если не потвержденны.<br />
Так что если муж узнает об измене жены, это не верно, пака вторая проверка не потвердит это...</div>
<div class="separator" style="background: #fda; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dw-OVicstgI/TvnkU3YKdxI/AAAAAAAAAFg/K_iNs8sGVSE/s1600/MiroBradaTrials.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dw-OVicstgI/TvnkU3YKdxI/AAAAAAAAAFg/K_iNs8sGVSE/s1600/MiroBradaTrials.gif" /></a></div>
<div style="background: #eeF; color: #777799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Ученный-концепция</b><br />
Ученный зто (тот человек) у которого синия и зелёная жидкости в его пробирках.<br />
Определение ученного: когда он начинает смешивать синию с зелённой, появляется дым.<br />
Величие ученного: чем больше дыма, тем лучше ученный...</div>
<div style="background: #adf; color: #335577; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>La rencontre avec mon ami (after Descartes)</b><br />
j'ai rencontré mon ami dans le jardin avec le chant joyeux d'un oiseau.<br />
Il a dit: 'Les politiciens sont aussi des humains...'<br />
Moi: 'si tu pense...'<br />
Il: 'Je pense, donc je suis ...'</div>
<div style="background: #FCC; color: #777777; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Philosophe contre masses</b><br />
Les messes affirment: un philosophe est biaisé, borné - trop rationnel, sans les vices.<br />
Mais le philosophe (logiquement) réfutée le, sans mentionner ses vices...</div>
<div style="background: #ffd; color: #777733; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>La loi la plus importante</b><br />
Pierre est idiot. Jean n'est pas idiot.<br />
Bientôt: Pierre n'est pas idiot, et au même moment, Jean est devenu idiot.<br />
Nous venons de formuler la loi de la conservation de la idiotisme...</div>
<div style="background: #cff; color: #779999; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Singularité</b><br />
Il l'aimait éperdument. Elle l'a quitté.<br />
Il ne pouvait pas s'en remettre.<br />
Enfin, il s'en est remis.<br />
Il a réalisé, il ne l'avait pas aimé.<br />
Sinon, il ne s'en remet pas.<br />
Il s'est tiré une balle par accident.</div>
<div style="background: #efb; color: #aabb33; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Secret de la dépression</b><br />
Il a entendu, il n'est pas bon d'être trop intelligent.<br />
Parce que beaucoup de personnes intelligentes souffrent de dépression.<br />
Le lendemain, il a obtenu la dépression inexplicable.</div>
<div style="background: #afa; color: #44cc44; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Scientist comme un concept</b><br />
Scientist est celui qui a des liquides bleu et vert dans ses tubes à essai.<br />
Définition du scientist: s'il mêle le bleu avec le vert, il commence à émettre de la fumée il ya.<br />
L'importance du scientist: plus grande de la fumée, plus grande du scientist...</div>
<div style="background: #cff; color: #779999; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Cientista como um conceito</b><br />
Cientista é alguém que tem líquidos azul e verde em seus tubos de ensaio.<br />
Definição do cientista: se ele mistura o azul com verde, ele começa a emitir fumaça lá.<br />
Grandeza do cientista: quanto maior fumaça, o maior cientista...</div>
<div style="background: #FCC; color: #777777; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Filósofo contra massas</b><br />
As massas afirmam: um filósofo é tendencioso, limitado - muito racional, sem os vícios.<br />
Mas o filósofo logicamente refutou, sem mencionar seus vícios.</div>
<div style="background: #efb; color: #aabb33; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Reunião com o meu amigo (d'après Descartes)</b><br />
Eu encontrei o meu amigo no jardim com pássaros cantando alegremente".<br />
Ele disse: "Mesmo os políticos são pessoas..."<br />
Me: "Você acha?"<br />
Ele: "Eu penso, logo existo..."</div>
<div style="background: #fda; color: #aa7755; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>A lei mais importante</b><br />
Joseph é idiota. John não é idiota.<br />
Pouco depois: Joseph não é idiota, e no mesmo momento, John está se tornando idiota.<br />
Nós apenas formulou a lei da conservação da idiotice...</div>
<div style="background: #ffd; color: #777733; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Perspicácia</b><br />
Inteligência reside na velocidade, nada mais.<br />
Quanto mais rápido nós discernir algo, mais inteligente ela é.<br />
Por favor note, eu sou primeiro a discernir exata dependência de inteligência, mas a sátira também.</div>
<div style="background: #eef; color: #777799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Verificação da hipótese</b><br />
Nada é certo, a não ser reconfirmado.<br />
Nem medição em física é válida, a menos que reconfirmada.<br />
E assim, se o marido descobre a infidelidade de sua esposa, é falsa,<br />
até a verificação segundo confirma que...</div>
<div style="background: #fae; color: #bb55ab; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Segredo da Depressão</b><br />
Ele ouviu, não é bom para ser muito inteligente.<br />
Porque muitas pessoas inteligentes sofrem de depressão.<br />
No dia seguinte, ele recebeu a depressão inexplicável.</div>
<div style="background: #FeF; color: #997799; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Abertura da conferência</b><br />
A memória do meu velho amigo ficou preso na minha cabeça.<br />
De um homem, que era pago por sua sinceridade.<br />
Eles desafiou-o para abrir a conferência sobre um assunto sério.<br />
Ele se levantou e disse:<br />
"Estamos todos, como aqui sentados, mentindo. Falando sobre coisas que desprezamos.<br />
Nada aconteceria, se não estivesse sentado aqui, e eu ficaria em silêncio.<br />
Você acha que, estes discursos expressam realidade?<br />
Ou, não é sobre isso. É chato aqui.<br />
Esta conferência vai mudar em nada a nossa morte?"<br />
Então, ele desembocava-se na graxa.</div>
<div style="background: #FeF; color: #997799; padding-left: 3px; padding-top: 5px;">
<b>Miro.Brada.Les Jugements (d'aphorismes publiés dans le journal Práca, 1996)</b></div>
</div>
</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-18255577370108767752010-12-22T17:03:00.000-08:002017-10-16T13:46:08.477-07:00China and India can dominate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>Interview with <a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2003/" target="_blank">Clive Granger</a>, Nobel laureate for economics since 2003</b><br />
<span style="display: block; text-align: center;"><br />
<img border="0" height="68" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8iYgdbLwspL_ZI-fEhK-2bVhGrWtnJ_2XovWhdq4Mc67eAP3GRUJKQo-x93uTcjCh6jWkJINa5zeDhfbg3XDyfMqCPkmelbCPaIrXn6gnjhf230VAg26P8SzLyM5_jChYMxc4LB3XmZk/s400/divergencie1.jpg" width="400" /></span><br />
<span style="float: right;"><b>by <a href="http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRACAI-3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRACAI-3.pdf" target="_blank">Miro Brada</a></b></span><br />
<i>Clive Granger (1934–2009) was, along with philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Brian Josephson, another Welshman who won the Nobel Prize - in his case for his methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends. He is also well-known for his statistical model of causality: if the price of morello, in a certain period, affects the estimated price of cherries, then the morello's price cause cherries' prices, in Granger's model.</i><br />
<i>In the interview, </i><i>I scrutinized various aspects of economics, including its validity to predict and manage society. To my </i><i>surprise, Clive refused the '18th century' criterion of the science: that experiment must be repeatable. </i><i>The uncertainty or triviality of the predictions in economics then serves as an excuse to avoid </i><i>responsibility, as it was financial crisis 2008, crash of the LTCM 1998, etc. Without objective criteria (like </i><i>repeated experiments), economics becomes only a 'modern' religion justifying the status-quo in society.</i><br />
<span style="font-size: smaller;">The interview was published in the Czech weekly <a href="http://www.tyden.cz/" target="_blank">Týden</a> (Dec. 2004)</span><br />
<b>Is econometrics applicable to prove God?</b><br />
- It is said that once a statistician, or perhaps mathematician, visited a King in a far eastern country and was asked to prove the existence of god, he wrote down a very complicated mathematical formula, and said 'there is my proof'. The King not wanting to admit that he did not understand, accepted it.<br />
<b>What's your proof?</b><br />
- My personal philosophy is that God operates on an entirely different plane to us and therefore there is no way that we can make sensible responses to questions like 'do you believe in God'.<br />
<b>What was your inspiration for your discoveries?</b><br />
- For cointegration I tried to disprove a remark by a co-worker, but my proof that he was correct suggested implications in various parts of the area in which I had been working.<br />
<b>Does invention in econometrics accord with science, art or rather philosophy?</b><br />
- I think that a lot of the best discoveries in econometrics involve developments that are both generalisations and also simplifications. These can then be seen to unify new parts of the field, although on occasion a new type of mathematics is required. I think we compare better with scientists than with artists, who are very free-flowing in perspective, or with philosophers who use introspection more than we do.<br />
<b>How much economics depends on politics?</b><br />
- Politics continually interacts with economics, often in unhelpful ways. Of course the economy can impact an election.<br />
<b>Russia was worse (on average) than West in technological innovations, but better in chess. Does political system determine kind of innovations?</b><br />
- Under Communism I understand that intellectuals were not allowed to study certain types of data, particularly economic data, so Russia became very strong in the area of Probability Theory (and Mathematics generally) but weak in classical Statistics, with Econometrics almost non-existent, but Operations Research quite strong, such as linear and non-linear programming. I think these were just facts of life in Russia for many years.<br />
<b>Society produces huge amounts of CO2, toxic and radioactive material. We still hear: "there is not enough data to prove it damages our environment"...</b><br />
...there is never enough data to be 100% certain of something, but it is a question of making decisions under uncertain circumstances. Many people kept smoking despite the increasing evidence that it was dangerous, but equally many others thought that the risk was not worth it and stopped. With Global Warming it will take a very long time to accumulate sufficient evidence for it to be completely convincing to some, nevertheless the evidence is sufficient for many for us to take some preliminary steps, as insurance.<br />
<b>If all statistics confirm something, after it's already evident, it seems trivial...</b><br />
...if they are all trivial, why is there such a fight to accept them by many economists?<br />
<b>If economics can't repeat experiments, is it a science yet?</b><br />
- Is meteorology or oceanography a science? The 18th century definition of a science is no longer relevant. The current answer to the question 'is economics a science' is 'who cares?'<br />
<b>Isn't "who cares" a bit arrogant response?</b><br />
- The only practical reason we would want to be classified as a science is that we may then get bigger research awards. In any other way, the question has few if any relevant features for the practicing economist.<br />
<b>Hume in 18th century wrote: "A precedes B" does not always mean "A causes B". Quantum physics in 20th century has reconfirmed that...</b><br />
- Hume is correct in saying that 'A proceeds B' is a necessary condition for causality but not a sufficient one. My own definition needs the further condition that A contains information about B that is in no other preceding variable. I believe that time–precedence is a necessary condition for causality and have not seen any 'testable' definition without this requirement.<br />
<b>Could statistics uncover events like WW II, 11.9.2001, Einstein's theory?</b><br />
- Statistics require a sample of more than one, unless you are a strong Baysian, and so could not make useful statements on the topics mentioned.<br />
<b>Is history derivable from the present? E.g. the default of Argentina (2001), would backwardly determine Black Friday (1929)...</b><br />
- All time series methods are essentially time non-reversible, relying heavily on the 'arrow of time' and often on 'path-specific' models. Thus, the answer is no.<br />
<b>Could Black Friday repeat itself?</b><br />
- Black Friday was a stochastic event, it could occur again at any time but has a very small probability.<br />
<b>So the 'stochastic' events such as Black Friday are unpredictable and thus unavoidable? </b><br />
- Any event is avoidable, or at least its effects can be reduced if it can be successfully forecast. You can ask-- can we forecast an earthquake or a volcanic eruption? It is impossible at present to do that but you can predict the probability of such an event and certain prior events lead to increases in this probability. The same applies to financial crises, such as banking or currency crises. If by 'stochastic' you mean 'somewhat forecastable but not perfectly' then the answer is yes.<br />
<b>Data is static, while reality is dynamic...</b><br />
- Data is a sample from the distribution, which itself is changing through time. One can only assume that the dynamics is slow enough for the data to allow us to test successfully between interesting alternative models or theories.<br />
<b>Data represents and is - in itself - reality. If data reveals relationship, this relationship instantly becomes the new data (about relationship) - like a snake eating its own tale (recursion)...</b><br />
- Data itself is far from perfect and econometricians and statisticians have developed 'robust' methods to get around some of these problems. The best "revealed relationships" are mixtures of data analysis and theoretical forms of a specific type. Thus this is only partially data.<br />
<b>Statistics is then maybe too incomplete to be valid and reliable...</b><br />
- You can never 'prove' anything with statistics but at least one can produce enough evidence to make people change their behavior, e.g. stop smoking!<br />
<b>A blind person don't see the light, although understands its mathematical properties (Husserl's phenomenology). Is reality understandable only through data analysis?</b><br />
- I think that some theorists are over-optimistic in the extent to which they think they can 'understand' the economy from their model, given that there exist alternative theoretical models and that their model has not been evaluated by the use of data.
<br />
<div id="becker">
<b>Gary Becker, Nobel laureate (1992), claims: higher pricing of cigarettes reduces their consumption. Could data analysis resolve controversies of the death penalty, legalization of drugs / euthanasia?</b><br />
- Data analysis is certainly applicable if good and appropriate data is available. For example, my study with other economists on the process of deforestation in the Amazon region of Brazil, could only have been conducted with a good panel from that region. I would doubt if Becker's result about the pricing of cigarettes holds up to a comprehensive study! For many of the important topics you mention a suitable data set may not be available.
</div>
<b>Could data uncover cyclic causality: A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A?</b><br />
- In my set up only the past can cause the future, but there can be several causes. Your question has to be framed as A(n) causes B(n+1), B(n) causes C(n+1),and C(n) causes A(n+1), all of which could occur from a data supported model, which is the chain you identify, but with occurances at different times!<br />
<b>Are all methods derivable from one "core" method?</b><br />
-There is no basic method as there are too many different types of data.<br />
<b>What's the first econometric method?</b><br />
- Historically, I would guess the chi-square used on a two-by-two table.<br />
<b>Maybe the bootstrap will unite the whole methodology.</b><br />
- The bootstrap is a useful simulation method to investigate the properties of a given model but is not helpful in suggesting alternative models as the economy evolves.<br />
<b>May different methods applied to the same data, contradict each other? One would conclude: "egg came first", another: "chicken came first".</b><br />
- Clearly two empirical models could produce contradictory results if one is carefully identified, tested and evaluated and the other is not. It could depend on the set of explanatory variables used, Model A could use one set and model B a quite different set. One obvious case where the problem could occur is with 'structural models' in which the model is built to use constraints implied by a theory, whereas the alternative models has no such constraints. If the theory is wrong the situation of the problem could occur, I think.<br />
<b>Statistical method is like an interface of data and hypothesis. Right?</b><br />
- I view an interface as the point where two rather different fields that are each well developed find themselves confronting each other on a particular topic, usually an applied one, which has specific restrictions. It is common to find that the two fields have similar concepts but with different names and each has results of interest not known in the other field. Examples could be policy analysis in economics and control theory in engineering or time series econometrics and oceanography.<br />
<b>Is econometrics 'ideologically' connected with IQ tests - psychometrics?</b><br />
- I doubt it, Adam Smith was talking about empirical relations, I think.<br />
<b>But both use similar abstractions: GDP-intellect, capital-ego, and methods: F-test, chi-square. Why not to merge economics with psychology?</b><br />
- What drives the methods are the properties of the data rather than the concepts, for example political science has lots of time series and uses our techniques. I agree that there should be more work in common between psychology and economics.<br />
<b>Will software 'develop' economic models on its own?</b><br />
- If you go far enough ahead all decisions will be made by computers. The program PCGETS already produces adequate dynamic single output/multiple input models and discussions about how such approaches can be generalized are happening.<br />
<b>Does the increasing power of computers improve economic predictions?</b><br />
- The forecastability of economic variables is largely an inherent property of the variable. The efficient market theory suggests that stock market returns are inherently unforecastable, and subsequent experience suggests that this is correct. Other variables are more forecastable and we have done better as techniques and data have improved, such as the forecasts of electricity demand, particularly daily usage. The most important variables are in this intermediate region, with some hope of improvements in the future but never certainty! <br />
<b>What is your guess about the Euro/Dollar exchange rate?</b><br />
- Over the next four years the dollar will get relatively weaker, beyond that is too far to forecast at present.<br />
<b>Will Asian economies - China, Japan, Korea - dominate?</b><br />
- The Asian economies that will eventually dominate are China and India, however not for the next eight years or so.<br />
<b>Are your predictions regarding dollar, China, India, justified by statistical methodology?</b><br />
- China and India have had the highest growth rates of any country in the last twenty years, they represent a third of the worlds' population and their strategies for further growth do not put them on naturally competing paths. The quantity and quality of data available is not yet sufficient to use sophisticated techniques but a simple plot and extrapolation is enough for general remarks.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TRHpDkpZtM/TvnrIDJ8ZBI/AAAAAAAAAGk/Kc8Cj-qxSaA/s1600/MiroBradaGranger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TRHpDkpZtM/TvnrIDJ8ZBI/AAAAAAAAAGk/Kc8Cj-qxSaA/s1600/MiroBradaGranger.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7524104444248369295.post-64141042183079202202010-12-21T12:15:00.002-08:002020-08-01T12:25:08.816-07:00Letter to Naomi<div style="background: #fee; color: #333311; font-family:Tahoma; font-size: 15px; padding: 11px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwjrvyFG2H-7-eMDSk5kLanAev_i_k3VzCq4ZY-AA6SsG1D-PFDFz8cKYePaxTbu_1PW2iHzln7xL9uTpjldOW6x5PQzSNI8qoVwJEG8dPBq_7O6b0zxkh3L1x9YGtMc4VMmCEByzky8/s1600/Me2d.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzwjrvyFG2H-7-eMDSk5kLanAev_i_k3VzCq4ZY-AA6SsG1D-PFDFz8cKYePaxTbu_1PW2iHzln7xL9uTpjldOW6x5PQzSNI8qoVwJEG8dPBq_7O6b0zxkh3L1x9YGtMc4VMmCEByzky8/s1600/Me2d.gif" /></a></div><br />
Dear Naomi,<br />
<br />
Walking along the human skeletons inside of the Parisian catacombs, <br />
I'm aware that wherever u r, whatever u do, we remain like<br />
night and day, life and death, truth and lie...<br />
How could it exist alone?<br />
There has not been such actor yet to express my joy, or except<br />
me as a child watching falling laminas of the roses,<br />
collecting them into the sack put under my pillow.<br />
Happier than happiest?<br />
Foolish warmongers drumming to celebrate a 'victory'<br />
Hurting those without choice, never man 2 man, face 2 face<br />
The rats are braver...<br />
But could I be better (please)?<br />
Some believe behind something, is something, is something...<br />
While I see nothing behind us Naomi, neither in front of us, <br />
nor aside, nor above, nor below...<br />
Like a full cup through which water spills over...<br />
<br />
Is philosophy possible..?<br />
<br />
Miro...</div><h1>...letter to Miro</h1><div style="background: #331; color: #ffeeee; font-family:Tahoma; font-size: 15px; padding: 11px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJ10sqe9Cbx4FBF9FwBLbCkBW4ICD5oT_I9Ox7SQq6QRmlpBoJ3Q1LByAw-KSyrSVLUo45d_5OZjhZXgaoGiebcjY_fefC3HusoQmwrqsp0MAAhTZbfv7183r1NpXxvlTwPqmLeNrqm8/s1600/NaomiD.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJ10sqe9Cbx4FBF9FwBLbCkBW4ICD5oT_I9Ox7SQq6QRmlpBoJ3Q1LByAw-KSyrSVLUo45d_5OZjhZXgaoGiebcjY_fefC3HusoQmwrqsp0MAAhTZbfv7183r1NpXxvlTwPqmLeNrqm8/s1600/NaomiD.gif" /></a></div><br />
Dear Miro,<br />
<br />
I'm promoting the acrobatic shows in Shanghai and Beijing,<br />
so I had no time to write you earlier. And then believe or not, <br />
I could not find a post office... How horrible!<br />
I hope u r already out of the catacombs, it's cold there, u could get flu!<br />
And if you don't see anything above, please visit our oculist, because <br />
right now so many people are standing on the podium above me, <br />
but I like it...<br />
I know you have always loved flowers, maybe you had been florist or <br />
gardener in your previous life, although not sure (just kidding)...<br />
You are philosophy, my tiny philosopher... <br />
And so brave.... braver than a rat :)<br />
<br />
See u soon.<br />
<br />
Kiss<br />
<br />
...Naomi</div>Miro Bradahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17741745405867182509noreply@blogger.com0