Thursday, 12 March 2015

Personality Model

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 'Maximization of Uniqueness (Originality)' 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 chess composition), I've built server and client logic of information system www.each.co.uk, and produced visual art. I presented the excerpts of 'Personality Model' in a few articles, and later as part of my art exhibitions: From Animation (Oct 2013, Holland Park, London), Parallax 12 (Feb 2015, Chelsea Town Hall, London), Fading Memory (Sep 2015, Weißenohe / Nuremberg, Germany). Another work: The Science is a subset of the Art 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 Monday 25. July, at ISSC 2016 conference in Santorini, Greece, Korean KAIST center in Daejon, and Australian Adelaide's conference on Symmetry.on Phillpapers






Reality consists of unique units: If 'p' occurs with probability 1/a, next 'p' has probability 1/a². 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).

Intellect links unique units in given time to logical series of 'identical' change (add, rotate, sum, etc). The more linked units, the higher intelligence. The more different logic, the higher flexibility. The less likely logic, the higher originality.

Personality is sum of logical series linked by intellect in given environment, time. The intelligence is distributed in personalities' series (changing in time). The core series is self-identity of 'ME's in various times, spaces (I am same now, yesterday, last year, tomorrow. My hand, leg, head, eye is ME..).

Psychosis (schizophrenia, manic-depression) captures intellect in one series (vicious circle of self-refutations) absorbing all intelligence of all series(es) including self-identify. Intelligence is captured, not necessarily deteriorated as E. Kraepelin (1865-1926) thought. The form of vicious circle: p, p, p, p... defines psychosis. The content is secondary, which corresponds to K. Jaspers' 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.
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.

Intelligence is one. 'Social', 'emotional', 'xy' intelligence is illusion. E.g. empathy needs certain intelligence to understand others. It doesn't guarantee empathy (pro-social behaviour), but probability of empathy (and less prejudices) raises with the level of intelligence.

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.

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: neurosis (unaware of prejudices: unconscious control), psychopathy (aware of prejudices: lying, pretending) or psychosis (ceaseless self-refutations). Personality disorders can overlap: neurosis can accompany psychopathy and vice-verse, and can disappear or reappear (only) in certain conditions enforcing disorders. E.g. enforced psychopathy occurs if a lie is necessary to survive. Everyone is sometimes neurotic (small obsessions), psychopathic (small lies).
Questionnaire of Unbiased Judgement: Logic of Prejudices
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.

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:
As for physical attractiveness people differ in a way that:
a) more attractive people are also more intelligent
b) they do not differ at all
c) some are more, other less attractive
d) everybody has an attractive feature
e) they differ a lot
f) it is hard to compare
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 (*)

Being a mathematical genius:
a) has a detrimental effect
b) does not need to have any detrimental effect
c) has positive influence on the whole personality
d) is accompanied by mental disorders
e) it is difficult to assess its influence on a human being
f) leads to a better adaptability
Assessment: b) unbiased in all cases (=0), a) and d) underrate genius (-2,-4), f) and c) overrate (2, 4), e) evasion (*).

A minority living in a state:
a) has its own specifics
b) is more peculiar than majority
c) is less adaptable than majority
d) is more tolerant than majority
e) is not comparable with majority
f) is more provocative
Assessment: Minorities have own specifics (language), but a minority person does not need to be worse or better than a majority person.

Extinct plants:
a) were more important than today’s plants
b) were useless
c) disappeared because of various causes
d) had the same value as alive plants
e) were not able to survive
f) were much more useful than present plants
Assessment: Survival depends on environment, if it is different some existing plants would not survived and some extinct ones would.

Overall assessment
Prejudices = Σ absolute values, Tolerance = Σ - / + values, Indifference =Σ evasions
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).
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.

Bias of Classic IQ method
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:


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 : ...........
There were 2 kinds of inventions:


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.


Expectation and cognition
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:


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).


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).


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.
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.

Association Tests: classification problem
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).
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:

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.


Intelligence and intricacy: Thinking
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:
a) y = x, returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
b) y = x4 - 10x3 + 35x² - 49x + 24, returns 1, 2, 3, 4, 29
c) other logic.
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.
The identity doesn't exist: 'p' differs from next 'p' by its position, time: p != p (Heraclitus Panta rhei 525-475 BCE). 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, ...
'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 2, and thinking is a sum of every intricacy 2 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...).


Test of Intelligence and Creativity (TIC)
In 1996 I developed TIC to asses intelligence, flexibility, originality from drawn logical series on printed patterns, which was a synthesis of Torrance Test of Creativity (1984) and IQ tests like Amthauer (1953), Raven (1936), Wechsler (1955). TIC and theory of intelligence was my Master thesis in 1998 highly appreciated by O. Kondáš - 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':

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.

Testing 600 people, I found 24 types of logic - some were combined.

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).


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:

Intelligence = ΣiN intricacyi2
Flexibility = ΣiN different logici
Originality is inverted probability of logic, if probability of rotating is 1/ar , its originality is ar. Probabilities of intricate series are multiplied, originality of rotating & adding = ar * aa.
Originality = ΣiN Oi
where originality of series Oi = Πxintricacy ax, where ax is inverted probability of logic x
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: Riemann–Stieltjes integral.




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.

Theoretically, Rotating & Rotating should have smaller originality ar * ar, 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 ar * ar 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.


Psychosis
Personality is determined by certain level of intelligence a2 distributed in various logical series, with core self-identity series.
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).
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 a2, the intricacy of one logic is 'a'. For 2 logics in manic-depression, one logic's intricacy is: 'a/√2' (because (a/√2)2 + (a/√2)2 = a2)

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).

Possible personalities = NM, where N = number of opportunities, and M is intelligence, in our example it is: 6M
Possible Schizophrenia(s) = N, in our example it is: 6
Possible bipolar disorders = N * (N-1) / 2, in our example it is: 15

While number of personalities exponentially raises with M (intelligence), for 6 logics there are still just 6 possible schizophrenias, and 15 possible bipolars. So:
The higher intelligence, the lower probability of psychosis and bipolars - probability decreases geometrically.
The more opportunities, the lower probability of psychosis and bipolars - probability decreases arithmetically.
The more opportunities, the higher ratio of bipolars to schizophrenia - the ratio increases arithmetically.

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 was documented by many studies, e.g here is a study from The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2015, by Dr. Kendler.
Ratio of bipolar to schizophrenia is (N - 1) / 2, does not depend on intelligence. According to WHO, 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 bipolar disorders in USA is 4.4%, while in India only 0.1%. And according to WHO's 2000 statistics, there are 1.45 times higher rate of schizophrenia in India than USA. The environment (opportunities) influences the number of psychoses / bipolar disorders, as well as their ratio. So genetics can't explain everything.

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.


Special tasks and levels of intelligence
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.

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.


Intelligence and Special Problems

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

The Science is a subset of the Art

I talked with the prominent chemist Antonín Holý 1936-2012, 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.

The interview was published in 2004 in blisty.cz and Národná Obroda

Antonín Holý, lab, Fleming square, Prague, October 2004                    


Humans consist of the carbon similar to the silicon. Could we be composed otherwise?
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.

Does it happen by evolution as Darwin 1809-82 said?
I'm not persuaded about that. Our time is too short for evolution. 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.

May diseases, killing the weaker, evolutionarily 'improve' gene?
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.

Is AIDS, SARS, ebola result of a devastated environment reacting somehow?
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.

Is society enough rational?
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.

Could poverty, dirt induce, by virus mutation, a new malady?
...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 Czech Republic, where you can get from the hot countries by plane within hours. It should be monitored.

What do you think of euthanasia?
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.

It is related to cloning...
...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'.

Will computer, decoding genetic codes DNA / RNA, replace chemists?
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 Dieter Söll who resolved 1964 a genetic code, synthesizing all 64 trinucleotides. Only then computers determined series of nucleotides. Söll was too young to get Nobel prize.

What are the greatest discoveries in Chemistry?
Chemistry is a whole system of sciences. Modern chemistry stands on discoveries of Lavoisier 1743-94, Mendeleev 1834-1907, Boyle 1627-91, using findings of alchemists that stood on the knowledge acquired and practiced in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Fleming 1928 noticed vanishing bacteria on mold spots penicillin by chance. Is invention accident?
"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.

Scheme of benzene appeared in Kekulé's 1858 dream: a snake biting its own tale.
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.

Is idea in science and in art, same?
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.

Is a talent for science and art same?
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. 

Some artworks took long time...
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. 

Centuries ago your job was unreal too.
We always stand on the predecessors. You can't discover all from Pythagoras to nuclear reactions. 

Newton 1642-1727 defined the basics of physics, when few considered it real.
True, but art depends on politics. Science not.

Politics, society indirectly determines scientific subject. High morals would halt spread of HIV.
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.
Those above, those below
Old Greeks Plato, Aristotle.. sought universality. Intelligence g factor correlates across various types. Why we then tend to think artistic and scientific talent differ? Rising knowledge, population (scale effect) explains specialisms, but why to split art and science?
Foucault: exclusion of fools in Enlightenment 17th century was to get rid of undesirables, regulate jobless, wages. The split of science and art reduced competences for those below not to challenge those above. Be an expert ONLY in one thing: chemistry molecular, organic.. music jazz, pop.. law, medicine, bakery..
Rousseau: art and science corrupt morality in favour of those above. The rich backed Renaissance, ballet.., the poor started jazz,
flamenco. 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 potentially contributing to a strong character.
Freud: 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 except sublimation exists. Schopenhauer praised art as an escape from the meaningless world. Nietzsche thought art manifested the will to power.  
For Rousseau Nietzsche flattered those above to support him superhuman as a marketing. For Nietzsche Rousseau misunderstood slavish morality of those below. The reality has various asymmetrical combinations statistics. Talents occur across social groups incl. poor: Fitzgerald, Whitman, Warhol, Mucha, having a disadvantage in spite of on average stronger incentive. Some wonder why many great artists were politically leftists: Picasso, Chaplin, Brecht, Hemingway.. The best are statistically less afraid to compete, less motivated to erect barriers curiosity prevails, market rises tending so to support at least verbally those below.
Foucault 1926-1984 claimed discontinuity is more typical for society than progress being an ideology justifying the upper class
Rousseau 1712-78 criticized modernity, progress, ownership, author of social contract: trade-off between rights and duties
Freud 1856-1939 author of a non-linear model of personality: id-ego-superego, enabling to interpret irrational behavior.
Fitzgerald 1917-96 one of the greatest singers, living in poor environment till her success
Whitman 1819-1892 American national poet, using a free verse, struggling for money in his youth
Warhol 1928-1987 son of indigent Slovak immigrants, most famous pop-artist with one of the most expensive artworks
Mucha 1860-1939 Moravian artist once got a chance to make a poster of actress Bernhardt, he became famous in Paris. 

How would chemist define the matter?
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.

Is there anything new, or synthesis with other field is inevitable?
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.

Art is Science is Language Kant criticized the pure reason and pure practice. Wittgenstein had said philosophy meta language points to nothing, only confuses, then left his claim. Understanding needs an interface of idea and experience: meta language logic that led with experiments to spaceship, opera, computer, jazz... Logic has its own inner laws, dynamics, evolution. Before Mendeleev chemistry was chaotic, prior to Newton physics didn't express gravitation, movement, light. Newton and Da Vinci read Euclid. Is so Euclid's geometry art or science? Both need creativity to reflect or change a reality. This way they are one. Rousseau'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 samE differEntly.
Kant 1724-1804  thought there was 'thing in itself' like Plato's pure idea - we can't understand or experience it.
Wittgenstein 1889-1951 once thought philosophy (or pure notions) is a byproduct of misunderstanding of language.
Mendeleev 1834-1907 properties of elements periodically repeat with their weights and can be organized accordingly
Newton 1642-1726 calculus, optics, gravitation / motion laws. Inspired by Euclid, Descartes...
Da Vinci 1452-1519 Painter, inventor... Inspired by Euclid...
Euclid 400-300 BC Mathematician, father of geometry...
Rousseau 1712-78 Modern man wants to impress others not to satisfy himself (natural man did). Science, art corrupts morality.

Is science given a-priori objectively, or it projects human factor?
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.

May society exclude the best scientist?
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.   

Science needs a material or social background. What would have done Edison, Einstein if he could not develop his talent?
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.

Some surgeons deciding about life, have God complex. Chemist changing matter can have similar feelings.
K Čapek wrote about it in Krakatit 1922, J Verne in The Begum's Fortune 1879. 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.



Will other substance replace oil in future?
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.

What was a difference between research before and after 1989 in Czecho-Slovakia
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.


  The Science is a subset of the Art
Reality is a sum of:

1) existing prototypes: p chair + p wheel + p magnet + ... p i
Intricate prototype includes others e.g: p car = p wheel + p engine +... + p xy   
Prototype occurs with probability: 1/a. The more intricate prototype, the lower its probability. 1 /  a spaceship < 1 /  a wheel
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 wheel = p rotation + ... + p xy.  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).

2) imitations of prototypes: p chair:1 + p chair:2 + p wheel:512 + p magnet:4 + ... p i:x, where x is order of imitated prototype (p chair:2 = 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.

3) potential prototypes: 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.

4) power structure (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.

Personality model
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?
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 rotation + p repeating & analogy + ... p i. The lower probability, the higher intricacy . The probability depends on environment: a wheel is less likely in a jungle than in a city.
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 rotation + p repeating & analogy + ... p i
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.


Edison's Economics
Kultúra, 1999
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?
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?
3) Edison invents a vehicle radically raising the output.

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'.

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...).

Later I generalized 'thinking in utility' to maximization of originality model, enabling to explain any kind of motivation including destructive behavior. Understanding of thinking is in Personality model clarifying the intellect, intelligence, originality, personality, neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis.









               
从艺术节选 20010-2007
Excerpts from the Art 2010-2007
20010-2007 مقتطفات من الفن

The same reality can be viewed differently.
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.
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).
La misma realidad se puede ver de manera diferente. 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.
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).
Picasso, Braque pioneered Cubism 1907, showing the object in different angles, evoking plasticity. Its novelty is HOW it is done, not WHAT it shows. Surrealism 1920s randomly links objects, motifs leading to a new curved style, induced by Chirico 1888-1978, mastered by Dalí 904-1989. Surrealism innovates the content altering the form, while the cubist new form alters the content.
Picasso, Braque foi pioneira cubismo 1907, mostrando o objeto em diferentes ângulos, evocando plasticidade. Sua novidade é a forma COMO ele é feito, não o QUE ele mostra. Surrealismo 1920s liga aleatoriamente objetos, motivos que levam a um novo estilo curvado, induzida por Chirico 1888-1978, masterizado por Dalí 904-1989. Surrealismo inova o conteúdo, que altera a forma, enquanto a nova forma cubista altera o conteúdo.
Возможно, самая впечатляющая импрессионистская живопись, по крайней мере не хуже, чем Подсолнечники Ван Гога 1888, или Хокусай Большая Волна от Канагавы 1829. Аналогично кубизм, импрессионизм обновляет форму: фрагментирование изображения, изменяющего иллюминат, окрашивать, изменяют размеры, пятнает... его части, чтобы перекрасить его снова.
Perhaps the most impressive impressionistic painting, at least not worse than Van Gogh's Sunflowers 1888, or Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa 1829. Likewise cubism, impressionism innovates the form: fragmenting the image, altering illuminate, colorify, resize, blur... its fractions to repaint it again.
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
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

Sunday, 19 January 2014

We are again at the very beginning

About selected philosophical questions of the past and today, with Egon Bondy (1930-2007).
Before and after the regime change in 1989, he was a spiritual leader of the Czechoslovak underground. I met Bondy at the coffee U Anjelov 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 Plastic People of the Universe, (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).
This interview was published in Blisty and Nove Slovo, 2003, and Philpapers

I redefine the existential view of decision that is incomplete and show why 'social science' can be mathematized.



Estamos de nuevo en el principio

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 U Anjelov 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 Plastic People of the Universe, (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).
Explico por qué es la visión existencial de la decisión incompleta y por qué la "ciencia social" se puede matematizado.

What's philosopher's work about?
The philosopher does not fable, just generalizes our experience gathered during centuries. This way sooner or later, the speech about everything will come out...
¿De qué trata la obra del filósofo?
El filósofo no fabula, sólo generaliza nuestra experiencia acumulada durante siglos.
De esta manera, tarde o temprano, el discurso surgirá...
¿Cuál es el significado de la filosofía hoy?
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...
What's the meaning of the philosophy today?
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...
¿Por qué la ciencia no puede responder a todas las preguntas ?
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.
Why science can't answer all questions?
It is restricted by its methodology, excluding exploration of the things out of our empirical
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.
Can philosophy discover anything by itself?
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.
¿Puede la filosofía descubrir algo por sí misma?
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.
Which philosophers contributed most?
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.
The fear of the finiteness?
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...
¿Qué filósofos fueron los que más contribuyeron?
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.
El miedo a lo finito?
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.
Was Heidegger the most important philosopher of the 20th century?
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...
Fue Heidegger el filósofo más importante del siglo XX?
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.
Why?
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.
Is it related to intelligence to understand that?
It is related also to intelligence, but mainly people don't like do and listen it.
Too few options may disable a decision...
It depends on opportunities, but from purely philosophical view the decision is simple: always between alternatives. In the extreme, between life or death.
¿Por qué?
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.
Demasiadas pocas opciones pueden desactivar una decisión...
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.
¿Está relacionado con la inteligencia para entender eso?
Se relaciona también con la inteligencia, pero sobre todo la gente no le gusta hacerlo y escucharlo.
Awareness of better opportunities elsewhere, creates a big frustration.
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.
Here I was unsatisfied with the answer.
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. *The post-war society thirsty for strong ideas could explain the popularity of slightly oversimplified Existential theses.
My decision depends on opportunity: others' permission, my intellect to realize the opportunity, and reality 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). *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.
The existential necessity to decide is incomplete because:
a) I can't sometimes decide, unless others allow me
b) I can't exceed reality regardless if it is idealistic Plato, Kant, irrational Schopenhauer or different.
c) My intellect may overlook the opportunity to decide, or be tempted by pseudo-opportunity.
Corrected concept of Sartre is: 'we are SOMETIMES sentenced to freedom'. The new could be: One of us will die first 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 Zeno paradox 490-30 BCDemocritus 460-370 BC. 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.  
Some economists say: cigarette's price don't influence decision (not) to smoke. As an inelastic good: 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 Prohibition 1920-33 cut alcohol use, G. Becker's addiction model 1988: cigarette's cost reduces average smoking. 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 1) I have all opportunities (=God), others none, 2) all have same opportunities. 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.
Understanding of decision (why, when, what) needs a new logic, like Descartes' Cartesian system or Euclid's geometry helping Newton to mathematize natural laws (quantum physics added statistics). Game theory (1944) has such potential, but oversimplifies motivation excluding 'irrational' behavior or externalities. What does a suicide, schizophrenic, or a dying person maximize? Also it ignores difference in intellect with potentially different outcomes. 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'.
aquí estaba yo insatisfecho con la respuesta.
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.*La sociedad de la post-guerra hambrienta de fuertes ideas podría explicar la popularidad de las tesis existenciales ligeramente simplificado.
Mi decisión depende de la oportunidad (del permiso de los demás), mi intelecto para darme cuenta de la oportunidad, y la realidad 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). *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.
La necesidad existencial para decidir esta incompleta porque:
a) No puedo decidir a veces, a menos que otros me lo permitan.
b) No se puede exceder la realidad independientemente si es idealista Platón, Kant, irracional Schopenhauer o diferente.
c) Mi intelecto pueden pasar por encima la oportunidad de decidir, o ser tentado por la pseudo-oportunidad.
La correccion del concepto de Sartre es: 'A VECES estamos condenados a la libertad ". Otra forma podría ser 'Uno de nosotros morira primero" 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 Zeno paradoja 490-30 aCo, Demócrito 460-370 aC. 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.
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 la prohibición disminuye el consumo de alcohol 1920-1933, en el modelo de adicción de G. Becker de 1988 el precio del tabaco reduce la media de consumo. 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.
Comprensión de decisión (por qué, cuándo, qué) necesita una nueva lógica, como el sistema cartesiano Descartes o la geometría de Euclides ayuda a Newton a matematizar las leyes naturales (física cuántica anadiendo estadística). La teoría de juegos (1944) tiene tal potencial, pero simplifica demasiado la motivacion excluyendo el comportamiento irracional y las externalidades. ¿Qué hace maximizar un suicidio, la esquizofrenia, o a una persona moribunda? También esto ignora la diferencia en la inteligencia potencialmente con diferentes resultados. 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'.

Conciencia de mejores oportunidades en otros lugares, crea una gran frustración.
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.
Some Marxists regarded Existentialism as a subjective irrationality...
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.
What’s reason of alienation?
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.
Algunos marxistas consideran el existencialismo como una irracionalidad subjetiva...
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.
¿Cuál es la razón de la alienación?
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.
Husserl focused more on the things...
...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'.
Husserl se centró más en las cosas...
...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".
Can be a perception of mentally ill truer?
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...
Puede ser una percepción de la mente enferma más verdadera?
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 ...
Can we philosophically understand the logic of schizophrenia?
Schizophrenics can do ritual activities like sitting behind computer, but they interpret everything differently. Their thinking is closer to symbolic world unlike ours. 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.

¿Podemos entender filosóficamente la lógica de la esquizofrenia?
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.
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.
Wittgenstein thought such reasoning useless.The problem is a language...
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.
Wittgenstein pensaba que tal razonamiento inútil. El problema es un lenguaje...
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.
Bajo el mismo nombre que todos pueden percibir cosas diferentes. Veo negro como se ve blanco...
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.
Under the same name all can perceive different things. I can see black as you see white...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
That change is on the level of conscience?
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.
Ese cambio está en el nivel de consciencia?
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.
That time some scientists including Einstein (1879-1955) rejected the quantum mechanics.
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.
El tiempo en el que algunos científicos como Einstein (1879-1955) rechazaron la mecánica cuántica.
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.
¿De qué trata la filósofia china?
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...
What's Chinese philosophy about?
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...
Parece que nada nuevo aparece...
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.
It seems nothing new appears...
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.



Letter to Naomi...

Dec, 2010

Dear Naomi,

Walking along the human skeletons inside of the Parisian catacombs,
I'm aware that wherever u r, whatever u do, we remain like
night and day, life and death, truth and lie...
How could it exist alone?
There has not been such actor yet to express my joy, or except
me as a child watching falling laminas of the roses,
collecting them into the sack put under my pillow.
Happier than happiest?
Foolish warmongers drumming to celebrate a 'victory'
Hurting those without choice, never man 2 man, face 2 face
The rats are braver...
But could I be better (please)?
Some believe behind something, is something, is something...
While I see nothing behind us Naomi, neither in front of us,
nor aside, nor above, nor below...
Like a full cup through which water spills over...

Is philosophy possible..?

Miro...

...letter to Miro


Dear Miro,

I'm promoting the acrobatic shows in Shanghai and Beijing,
so I had no time to write you earlier. And then believe or not,
I could not find a post office... How horrible!
I hope u r already out of the catacombs, it's cold there, u could get flu!
And if you don't see anything above, please visit our oculist, because
right now so many people are standing on the podium above me,
but I like it...
I know you have always loved flowers, maybe you had been florist or
gardener in your previous life, although not sure (just kidding)...
You are philosophy, my tiny philosopher...
And so brave.... braver than a rat :)

See u soon.

Kiss

...Naomi

Miro.Brada.The Trials 1996
Daily Práca, one of 4 winners of the public literature competition Archa Snívavcov 1996
Meeting with my friend d'apres Descartes
I met my friend in a garden with joyful birds' singing. He said: Politicians are still people.
Me: Do you think so?
He: I think, so I am...
Scientist as a concept
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...
The most important law
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...
Verification of the hypothesis
Nothing is certain, unless reconfirmed.
Neither measurement in physics is valid, unless reconfirmed. So if a husband finds his wife's infidelity, it's untrue, till next verification...
Philosopher contra masses
The masses say: philosopher is too rational, no vices. The philosopher logically disproved it, no mentioning his vices...
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: 
"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 'only I know that 'YOU know 'what I know''', only I know that... etc 
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. The consciousness is so indivisible implying the permanent 'existential solitude' at the very bottom of each existence.
The meaning of 'existential solitude' can be surprising. E.g., if there are more people (you, he, she, they...) the combination of 'who knows what', and 'who knows 'who knows what'' vastly rises at each moment (and as time flows) implying 'existential divergence' driving each existence further from each other. In contrast, avoiding society minimizes set of 'who knows what' implying 'existential convergence' moving the existence closer to other existences.
I also analysed paranoia (schizophrenia) via replacing 'YOU' with THEY:
If I am realizing 'THEY spy ME', I know it. But do THEY know it? If yes, THEY know more than ME, if not I know more than THEY. So THEY never know, what I know (regardless of their technology).
Replacement 'YOU' by GOD gives a theological example: GOD (if exists or not) all knows, but I know that GOD all knows, and if GOD knows that I know that GOD all knows, I know that, etc. 
Mathematically (using kind of calculus) I turned 'All I know, only I know' to a recursive contradiction, formally identical to Ancient Greek paradox of liar (is lying liar lying?) or Zeno (before you reach point B you must pass its half distance, its half distance, etc so point B is unreachable), Russell's paradox in 1901 (does 'set of all sets excluding itself' contain itself?), or some models of game theory.
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'. 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 or synonyms (Wittgenstein's language game), that's why 'I think, so I am' could be: 'I know, so I am'.

Related links:
Convergence and divergence of economics (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. 

God knows that I know that God everything knows (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: 'the first unit of consumption of a good or service yields more utility than the second and subsequent units'. 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...

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.
'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...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...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.Am I exaggerating?
Not at all (pas du tout)...
MiRO BRADA, london, 4. MaY, 2010
Chess composition and music
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.
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 (Zagorujko), 4 paradoxes (2 Dombrovskis, 2 Hannelius), 2 functions' changes (2nd x 3rd moves).
Juror Bedrich Formánek President of the FIDE for Chess Composition 1994-2002 wrote: 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.
At time of listening and composing that problem I did not know Tannhäuser opera's plot, but I felt its controversy (non-linearity), which was the impetus to my three phases' mechanism.
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 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 creating 'bad' to blemish the stronger. But who is the stronger, and what are criteria?
'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'?
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. J. Sotomayor jumping 2.45m (1993) or business magnate B. Gates?
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. 
In Wille zur Macht he disliked determinism and causality (past to future) dominated the natural science e.g. thermodynamics of Kelvin (1824-1907). 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...
Nietzsche's philosophy is unfinished, because he did not express dynamics of his ideas statistically (mental breakdown is other issue)