Jump to content

Kurkistan

Recommended Posts

So Kurk, I had the thought that spiritual connections might extend into the cognitive and physical realms as well. Like strings holding the three aspects together.

If this is true, then your Forms could exsist in the cognitive realm as opposed to the spiritual, and still be part of the "network".

My inner OCD thinks "collective ideas" should be cognitive.

Also I wanted your opinion on whether Ashraven's headwound in TES destroyed or diconnected part of his mind or spirit. I'm waffling again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is easy enough :) Spiritual connections arise, in part, from the arrangements of objects in question in both Physical and Cognitive. Hence, a human thinking "yeah, that is a window" forges a new, however weak connection between an object and other objects of the same name. And there are a lot of humans... (as an aside, there is an interesting problem of language. For example, my concept of "window" in russian is mildly different from same concept in english. Objects like a window are not a good example here, but still, some concepts may not even have an equivalent in another language, and what you see as an object may be seen like so many parts by somebody else. Ahem.)

Anyway, in such a way, a network (of pathways) between similar objects is formed. When such a network is strong enough, it may become self-sufficient (at least for a while), and continue to exist even if you destroy everything window.

Also, I think Shai exaggerates a bit, since the is a poet at heart :)

That seems to be somewhat too complicated, I think. The way you have it, Observer Z sees window W0, and thinks "'yeah, that is a window.'" This then creates an arbitrarily large number of Spiritual connections between W0 and W1->Wn for a world/region with n other windows. This requires that something keep track of all of these windows so that new bonds can be forged.

But okay, let's be charitable. Let's say that W0 only has to connect to W1, then it piggy-backs on its "knowledge" of W2->Wn to establish the new bonds from W0. How does W0 know about W1? Does Z transfer that information--perhaps unconsciously thinking of W1 when he says "window"? Anything else smacks of W0 just spontaneously knowing where to look for other windows. I suppose this model would work, then. It essentially mimics Z having a single connection to a Window Form and then passing on the link to W0.

So then we ask why we should favor your conception, and/or if it's meaningfully different from mine. In my model, each window W has a single connection with the same Window form, for n connections going instance <-> ideal. In yours, there are (n-1)^2 n(n-1)/2 connections between all windows, with "Window" only having meaning in the abstract. Anyone who thinks of "a window" is in fact just thinking of one or more particulars, and so gaining access to the broader web.

Okay, they seem to be equal in terms of function at least. Mine is certainly simpler in terms of how many connections you need, but that isn't a guarantee of correctness. You could even scale down to just n connections yourself and have a unary tree, though that would risk losing parts of the network if any intermediaries get axed. I suppose you could have some happy median between n and (n-1)^2 n(n-1)/2.

But then we get to the inertia/durability of Forms. I posit that they are semi-independent and can last a bit after they lose "thinkers" to sustain them. Now I think this is supported by Brandon's "mashup of Platonic Forms and..." Shai's "takes on life, after a fashion", but you could argue against it, if you wanted to. You could say that these Forms can still be wholly dependent on their particulars. It goes a bit against the spirit of both Idealism and Shai's quote, but you could get away with it. But that's the only option your theory has left.

You define these Forms as entirely dependent on the webs of connection that define them. If all the windows in the world suddenly see themselves as stained glass, then there is no longer any conception of a clear window. You say that "[w]hen such a network is strong enough, it may become self-sufficient (at least for a while), and continue to exist even if you destroy everything window," but I don't think that that is supported by your theory, or even allowed.

Where is such an enduring image going to live? Connections have to be between things: they're pathways, not tracks.

The very idea of your Form was a mere abstraction from the beginning, simply the aggregate of windows in the network. So if we go with you, we have to abandon the idea of these Forms having any durability, and stray away from (what I read as) the spirit of our evidence.

So, in conclusion (sorry, you got a bit of stream-of-consciousness there), you're theory is theoretically acceptable, but I find it less appealing than my own both because of my interpretations of the quotes I gave and because of the simplicity of that interpretation.

----

Also, we have Spren. Now this is just me personally, but I think Spren accessing Forms is a fairly elegant answer to at least part of the question of their nature. You lose that if you only allow "forms" of your type to come into being as connections between real objects. "Death" and "wind" and "pain" don't have objects to form a network of bonds between, and so never get Forms under your system.

Even if you say that some "wind" object has temporary existence, that doesn't seem to last long enough to form the kinds of world-spanning Spiritual connections between large numbers of such transient entities.

EDIT: And be happy that I remember to add paragraphs to begin with for I tend to forget, for in my mind, all sentences are often as one concept :) But I'll keep it in mind.

Sorry if I was rude, it can just get a bit hard to read every once in a while. You're usually on the right track--you have one line break, you just can't seem to hit "Enter" a second time. ;)

Edit2: And yes, you can technically refer to an independent tangle of pathways in Spiritual realm as a "form", I guess. But why bother, when you refer to them as "cognitive-based eigenpathways" or something? :P

I wouldn't call them "cognitively-based <what the frankenfurter does that word mean!? *Wikipedia* No, still don't get it>" mostly because they're Spiritually based, according to the quote.

So Kurk, I had the thought that spiritual connections might extend into the cognitive and physical realms as well. Like strings holding the three aspects together.

If this is true, then your Forms could exist in the cognitive realm as opposed to the spiritual, and still be part of the "network".

My inner OCD thinks "collective ideas" should be cognitive.

I'm against this. As my mondo-theory holds, I'm good with Spiritual connections and whatnot having profound effects on the other two Realms, but I think it's going too far to say that those connections "extend" to the other realms. I think they act indirectly.

Sorry for your inner OCD, but Shai is pretty clear on "collective ideas" being in the Spiritual.

Also I wanted your opinion on whether Ashraven's headwound in TES destroyed or diconnected part of his mind or spirit. I'm waffling again.

I say it's disconnected in the OP, because Gaotona's test-stamps needed something to compare to, but FlashWrogan suggested that it could have accessed Ashraven's body's Spiritual aspect instead. I still don't know if the body would know enough, though. I'm still leaning a bit towards disconnected, but that goes against the strong "destroyed" language used in the book. The problem is, we really need something to compare the stamps to, and Shai says the window-Form comparison is the same one that her test-stamps do on Gaotona.

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll try to answer, but no quotes, since phone :)

1. Well, you touched on it, but yes, you are the one who forges new connection between a window you see and all others. Each person's concept of "window" is different, and is formed by other people assigning labels to rather arbitrary collections of stuff, but they are close enough. Once again - different languages, different concepts, similar to mild personality change for the person switching language he is thinking in. Hence, no single, ideal form for window, just something average. (pity I can't draw that now )

2. n^2 or more connections :) As mentioned in my theory, connections go one way, so you need at least two, in most cases.

As for simplicity, well... Doctor once said that I have simple and complex backwards :) For me, having more connections but less separate entities is easier.

3. Did you miss the part where I noted the persistence of pathways after the objects are gone? Unsupported pathways will decay, but for a stable concept that will take a while, and also Spiritual stores history, so stuff can be ( technically) recovered.

Here I would like to point out that you separate pathways and objects, while in my head objects, well, everything, *is* pathways and energy in them (interchangeable). Even human can be viewed as a tangled, pulsing web spanning all three realms :P

So yes, branching, formation and persistence of pathways are allowed.

Besides, will a concept of window even persist for long if everything window and everybody who remembers window are destroyed?

4. Death, wind and pain are more of processes. Btw, do we know if animals attract painspren? Ok, that would require explaining concept of resonant networks of pathways, but essentially similar changes attract pieces of Shard that resonate with change, and Stormlight fuels those pieces to become visible. I may expound more on that later.

5. Look up eigenvalues and eigenfaces. They are cognitive-based because they are formed from cognitive perception, while being stored in Spiritual.

Edit: hit post by mistake

Edited by Satsuoni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eigenpathways would be a play on eigenvalues. Linear Algebra hubub.

I think a lot of problems go away if we stop assuming that all things exist in all three realms. If all clear windows are gone from the physical, why would they necessarily stop existing in the cognitive? Wouldn't the memory of them exist as long as things that were connected to them exist? Memory being an analog of cognitive connection...

Of course, no physical existence+no memory = no cognitive existence.

Posit: Requirement for existence in the spritual realm is ability to make changes in the cognitive realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a facepalm moment. The window's spiritual aspect doesn't become a window when people look at it and think "window", the spiritual aspect is made into a window when the window is being made.

The process is started by the craftsman, who first gives the glass and wood he uses meaning, and reinforced by other people's perception of it as a window.

The original stained glass window was a work of art, and most likely took a great deal of effort by the craftsman, so the 'form' he gave it was strong. When it was repaired, it was repaired carelessly, so the original form was still strong when Shai applied her seal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aaradel

A good thought that had not occurred to me. The craftsman, and indeed, any craftman, probably has a large and lasting impact on how an object perceives itself. A lovingly crafted abstract sculpture might hold firm against hundreds of casual "looks like scrap metal to me" views in the face of a few opinions of earnest appreciation.

Be careful where and how you use the word "form," though. The window's own Cognitive aspect might view itself very strongly as being a window--perhaps represented by an unusually strong connection to some Window Form--but that Cognitive aspect itself is not a "form." It is quite posible, even likley, that a haphazardly constructed window would have had a weaker, more malleable Cognitive aspect that stayed as a stained glass window for less time, but it's not a matter of "forms" on the level of the individual object.

That last paragraph may be a bit unclear. Do you get what I'm saying?

Ok, I'll try to answer, but no quotes, since phone :)

1. Well, you touched on it, but yes, you are the one who forges new connection between a window you see and all others. Each person's concept of "window" is different, and is formed by other people assigning labels to rather arbitrary collections of stuff, but they are close enough. Once again - different languages, different concepts, similar to mild personality change for the person switching language he is thinking in. Hence, no single, ideal form for window, just something average. (pity I can't draw that now )

Discrete but "close enough" just doesn't sound right to me. Shai's quote indicated something a bit more singular. As far as end results go, the two models are functionally the same, though, so far as I can tell, so there's little in the way of concrete criticism I can offer. I suppose I'll have to be a it more foundational in my attacks: if you can't justify each new window being plugged into the entire network (forming (n-1)^2 n(n-1) connections in the process), then the network can't be how it works.

2. n^2 or more connections :) As mentioned in my theory, connections go one way, so you need at least two, in most cases.

As for simplicity, well... Doctor once said that I have simple and complex backwards :) For me, having more connections but less separate entities is easier.

Ah, I'd forgotten that you only had one-way connections. Sorry. Okay, so just 2(n-1)^2 n(n-1). Still O(n^2), so not really different in terms of complexity.

It's not the number of connections I'm worried about, complexity wise (or at least not only the number of connections), it's how that many connections get formed in the first place. I just don't see where the impetus is coming from the connect W0 to W1->Wn. Z isn't going to think of each and every one of those windows individually and be like "oh, W0 is like that one too", and I don't want to attribute enough autonomy to the windows that they actualize the connections themselves, so I'm concerned as to the authority/power by which those many many connections are made

3. Did you miss the part where I noted the persistence of pathways after the objects are gone? Unsupported pathways will decay, but for a stable concept that will take a while, and also Spiritual stores history, so stuff can be ( technically) recovered.

Here I would like to point out that you separate pathways and objects, while in my head objects, well, everything, *is* pathways and energy in them (interchangeable). Even human can be viewed as a tangled, pulsing web spanning all three realms :P

So yes, branching, formation and persistence of pathways are allowed.

Besides, will a concept of window even persist for long if everything window and everybody who remembers window are destroyed?

No, I caught that part. I just argued that it was inconsistent with the rest of your theory. :P

I suppose I simply don't like the idea of all and everything being pathways and their energy. It seems to me that something ought to anchor them.

Persistence is an open question. I think it's suggested by the evidence, but you can certainly argue against it. If you take my Spren argument as true, then you get a fair amount of evidence due to the transience of many Spren-associated phenomena.

4. Death, wind and pain are more of processes. Btw, do we know if animals attract painspren? Ok, that would require explaining concept of resonant networks of pathways, but essentially similar changes attract pieces of Shard that resonate with change, and Stormlight fuels those pieces to become visible. I may expound more on that later.

Or you could call them phenomena, I suppose. The problem is their transience and lack of first-order reality. If I'm right about Spren, then are your pathways sufficient to connect these concepts strongly enough to persist and be accessed by Spren?

Animals are an interesting question. I would hazard that they do attract painspren, if only because they experience pain as such. I suppose you have to philosophize about it to see if they have a concept of pain, though, and how that might change things.

So Honor and/or Cultivation have parts that resonate with Ale? With Fire? I await your exposition.

5. Look up eigenvalues and eigenfaces. They are cognitive-based because they are formed from cognitive perception, while being stored in Spiritual.

*Looks it up. Closes tab immediately.*

No, thank you. I don't feel like getting educated today. :mellow:

Why don't you give a whack at explaining how they apply to the Cosmere, if you think that they are particularly enlightening?

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm... Tired now, so there might be mistakes, but let's see.

1. There is not and can never be an ideal concept of "window". There are collections that the majority of people would call a window, but some people would always disagree. Hence, the idea of form is... weird. Yes, I have studied Platonic forms (it was a while ago, though), but, well. In context of Platonism (IIRC), you can see my argument as a posit that no form is manifested purely in any of three realms, only mixed shadows of several forms blurred together.

Now, again, I point out that Shai is somewhat of a poet :) And so prone to certain amount of exaggeration.

2. Look at advanced theories of physics :) String theory posits that everything is strings, loop quantum theory that everything is loops of spacetime, standard model - that everything is so many interacting fields. And in the end, everything is made out of energy. Quite simply, if you say that something "anchors" pathways, you have to say what the anchors are made of... and what keeps those anchors together. My theory is probably closest to the cross of string and loop theory, but I don't know enough about them to be certain.

3. Spren. Hmm. Well, assuming additional energy influx during Shard splintering somehow went into those pathways, therefore strengthening them, I don't see why they wouldn't grow strong enough to persist. There are many things about spren that will be made clear in the next book (said Brandon, RAFOing me on reddit). For one, I wonder if spren individuality persists over periods without Nahel bond. I mean, Syl seems to remember more and more stuff, but is it her memory, or collective memory of honorspren (well, the fact that she has a name strongly suggests individuality of at least that knowledge. And that suggests that the number of spren is finite.)

Also, Honor and Cultivation were once human, you know :) Maybe Tanavast liked him some ale. Or maybe that connection arose independently from the Shardic intent, just from raw power filling up the existing pathways.

4. Eigenvectors are vectors that do not change direction (up to sign) under certain linear transformation. In a way, they define the core of transformation. In our case, they are something that persists over all permutations of concept in some form :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had another brain bender. Kurk, I'm going to start stalking you if I keep getting ideas like this when I read your topics.

I've been struggling with your 'forms' theory and how concepts and ideas can exsist tangibly in the spiritual realm. I can't help but see concepts and ideas - which may or may not have a tangible aspect in the cognitive realm, and definitly have no tangible physical aspect - as intrinsically (sp?) different from objects and beings that have a tangible aspect all three realms. Your theory does make a certain amount of sense, but I can't help but think there may be a simpler solution. Anyway, the question sparked another thought about a Shard's Intent.

We know that all Shards are tied inseperably with an Intent. For a while I thought that Intents were some kind of cognitive restiction, but what if Intents and Ideals (as mentioned by whatshisname the cook/scholar in WoK) are how spiritual energy exsists in the spirtual realms?

I'm on my mobile so I'll be breif. Intents are the tangible "lines" of spiritual energy that exsist in spiritwebs. Like a craftsman's Intent is what forms a spiritual bond between him and his materials, allowing him to define the spiritual aspect of the final product, a gardener's intent to Cultivate a garden forms a connection between them, a leader's intent to Honor his word to his subordinates helps him form a bond with them, and so forth.

Aside from Intents there are Ideals - the perfect form of something that has a Physical and/or Cognitive aspect. This Ideal is the spiritual aspect of objects and living things.

I'd post more but I'm running late.

Kurk, you ready to poke some holes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aaradel

No need to stalk me, Aaradel *slowly reaches for phone to call police*, why don't we just sit and talk for a bit... *nervous laugh* ;)

I think I might like where you're going with this, but I'll wait for you to flesh out Ideals and wrap up their interaction with Intents--and/or how this impacts the Cosmere as a whole--first.

Hm... Tired now, so there might be mistakes, but let's see.

1. There is not and can never be an ideal concept of "window". There are collections that the majority of people would call a window, but some people would always disagree. Hence, the idea of form is... weird. Yes, I have studied Platonic forms (it was a while ago, though), but, well. In context of Platonism (IIRC), you can see my argument as a posit that no form is manifested purely in any of three realms, only mixed shadows of several forms blurred together.

Now, again, I point out that Shai is somewhat of a poet :) And so prone to certain amount of exaggeration.

Aggregates are a bit messy mechanically, but I don't think their insupportable. I suppose this is simply another conceptual roadblock so far as our dialogue goes.

As for Shai's poetry, that quote is from a section where she's pretty straight-forward; she romanticizes the window "wanting to be beautiful" in her head a bit just before that, but then immediately chides herself for it ("Or maybe she was just being romantic again") and only says more nuts-n-bolts stuff to Gaotona. She could be exaggerating, or I could be misreading, but I think Shai is saying pretty much how she thinks it works, pretty much as was taught by her when she first learned Forgery.

2. Look at advanced theories of physics :) String theory posits that everything is strings, loop quantum theory that everything is loops of spacetime, standard model - that everything is so many interacting fields. And in the end, everything is made out of energy. Quite simply, if you say that something "anchors" pathways, you have to say what the anchors are made of... and what keeps those anchors together. My theory is probably closest to the cross of string and loop theory, but I don't know enough about them to be certain.

Huh. Physics. :blink:

Thing is, everything might be composed of swirly loops of stuff fundamentally, but the basic unit of magical interaction in the Cosmere seems to be most usually "objects" as whole objects. Awakening, Soulcasting (usually), Basic Lashings, unskilled Iron/Steel Allomancy, etc. When a Seon forms a Spiritual Connection with you, or you form a connection with someone's soul, it's connecting with you, not some aggregate of your parts. So maybe everything is loopy pathways at the bottom of it, but connections seem to require some particularly concrete and whole set loopy pathways at each end.

3. Spren. Hmm. Well, assuming additional energy influx during Shard splintering somehow went into those pathways, therefore strengthening them, I don't see why they wouldn't grow strong enough to persist. There are many things about spren that will be made clear in the next book (said Brandon, RAFOing me on reddit). For one, I wonder if spren individuality persists over periods without Nahel bond. I mean, Syl seems to remember more and more stuff, but is it her memory, or collective memory of honorspren (well, the fact that she has a name strongly suggests individuality of at least that knowledge. And that suggests that the number of spren is finite.)

Also, Honor and Cultivation were once human, you know :)/> Maybe Tanavast liked him some ale. Or maybe that connection arose independently from the Shardic intent, just from raw power filling up the existing pathways.

Yeah, I imagine a lot of Spren questions will have been settled by this time next year.

The question with Ale and whatnot is how those pathways existed to be able to be raw-powerfied in the first place. A popular conception of drunkenness just doesn't seem to have anywhere to hang around.

4. Eigenvectors are vectors that do not change direction (up to sign) under certain linear transformation. In a way, they define the core of transformation. In our case, they are something that persists over all permutations of concept in some form :)

Okay, I guess I get it now. ^_^

Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. Physics. blink.gif

Thing is, everything might be composed of swirly loops of stuff fundamentally, but the basic unit of magical interaction in the Cosmere seems to be most usually "objects" as whole objects. Awakening, Soulcasting (usually), Basic Lashings, unskilled Iron/Steel Allomancy, etc. When a Seon forms a Spiritual Connection with you, or you form a connection with someone's soul, it's connecting with you, not some aggregate of your parts. So maybe everything is loopy pathways at the bottom of it, but connections seem to require some particularly concrete and whole set loopy pathways at each end.

Ok, from a science point of view, this is going to be a hideous mess of mixed analogies, but hopefully it makes sense as a visual analogy (inspired by the physics comments) and fits this theory fairly well;

Imagine taking a whole bunch of little bits of string and tying them together in various ways to make a gigantic snarled ball of string. This ball of string is floating in space, and is considered a solid object. (There's your string theory :P )

Think of the knots in the ball of string as the nodes we've been talking about for the Spiritweb, while the bits between knots are the connections.

Now place a piece of paper under the string, and shine a light on it from above. The light (more precisely, everything about it - angle, intensity, duration, etc.) is the cognitive aspect. (Look up the Holographic Principle if you want the physics side of that part as I'm really envisioning it. And probably a headache).

The shadow cast on the piece of paper is the object's existence in the physical realm. Pretend for the moment that our concept of "shadow" allows for actions upon the shadow to have some effect on the object casting it. As I said, the analogy is meant for a visual connection between everything only.

You can change the shadow both by manipulating the string while still keeping it a solid object (manipulation of the spiritual), and also by changing the aspects of the light (manipulating the cognitive). Various mixtures of the two are your normal forms of Investiture. It's possible to treat the ball of string as a collection of little bits of string, but for most basic manipulations, it's a single object.

And, in special cases, you can punch through knots and physically remove/graft on different snarls of string. Voila, Hemalurgy!

Oh, and sDNA is the instructions for making the ball of string in the first place.

Edit: And Forms, I think, in this analogy, would be best thought of as sets of combinations of string and light that are similar, and cast similar shadows. For example, every combination that gives a stained glass window of the proper size and shape in Shai's cell. The lack of absolute specificity is what allows Forgery to work at all without needing to describe every single little bit of string and every photon of light.

Edited by Krelian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

^That's interesting (sorry for the late reply, was essentially computer-less for awhile there). You might want to consider throwing up a separate thread on that.
 
In other news (as pointed out first here by Senor Fresh, that fast-acting cremling), Brandon has divulged some info on the nature of Spren:
 

Rutthed:

Serious question: are there poopspren, and how would they fare in indoor plumbing situations?

mistborn:

Well, it depends on how you're defining spren. In the books, they don't make a distinction, but there are several varieties. At the basic level, everything has an identity--a soul, you might say, but more than that. This is based on how it is viewed, and how long it has been viewed that way. Feces would have this, but wouldn't have a very strong cognitive identity because of its transitional nature.

Other types of spren, the type that characters see and interact with, are cognitive ideals or concepts which have taken on literal personification over time. These are usually related to forces or emotions, and don't relate to this particular topic.

And that's far more than I ever expected to say on this...

 

So we get a second confirmation of "personifications" to add onto our "Window" example, and we have a definite expansion to ideals/concepts as well as physical objects. More (hopefully) in my Spren-centric thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

UPDATE:

 

Just a little confirmation that soulstamps do in fact overwrite spiritual aspects. No word on whether it's restricted to just spiritual aspects, but it's nice to have confirmation that "soul" means a bit of what we think it means in this context.

 

Source:

Q: Suppose you had a feruchemist that was also skilled in forgery. If they soul stamped themselves, would they normally be able to still use feruchemy, and if they were able to use feruchemy after a soul stamp would they be able to access their own metalminds.

 
A: (Paraphrased): Brandon said that you could do so, but it would require jury rigging in order to make it work. Since the soul stamp overwrites the current spiritual aspect of a person. He then said that the accessing the metalminds would also require some amount of jury rigging. 
Edited by Kurkistan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Chaos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...