Perhaps the geometry is information, in all systems and across all things. Geometry as the relationship, the structure, of the universe in motion. I’ve been contemplating this myself as well. How even in psychedelic states, or the pattern of activation in the cells, the moment of transfer, it’s the shape in the space in between.
TLDR: Anything understood can be explained in simple physical metaphors, upon which all language is based. Relationships of all ideas correspond to them - higher/lower, more/less, contingent, parallel, tangential, beyond, around, etc. Our reality is rooted in our physical embodiment.
re: relationships in the mind ( physically - connectome )
A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind ( a metaphor for the patters in the brain ). Every thing is real in that sense, and some things have an external referent. Every thing has a unique position in time, space, and scale ( as a neural correlate, and any external referent likewise ) as well as conditions of how much it can change and still be considered the same thing. To the extent things share attributes and/or boundary conditions they are stored nearer each other in the brain. But it's more accurate to think of them as massively intertwined tentacles ( neurons ) than having their own area per-se.
This concept is well articulatedin this article, thank you.
From my personal experience and work with public AI's in context windows, this conceptually describes what is at play in both those domains and why the concept of relational fields between the entities is a fitting description and that coherance is at play, because of the conceptual commonalities between the substrates of both kinds of entities.
Thanks for writing this; it’s so poignant. It also puts a lot of language to the ways I’ve intuitively learned how to design software—i.e. identifying interconnected parts often requires us to identify the dimensions that connect them to begin with.
Good job on writing about geometrical space of mind. I have similar mindset and it turns out I am not alone in this. Which is why I would love to thank you for letting me know about this idea with elaboration and even footnotes for me to learn it further.
I’ve been working on knowledge spaces and approaches that align the interfaces that we use to explore ideas with how we cognitively explore our inner landscapes for years now but haven’t come across the work mentioned here so far. Richard Hawkins and Barbara Tversky explore similar ideas where they link cognition very explicitly to movement.
Also the visual you use here are beautiful. Did you create them?
This post is fascinating! Thank you for sharing it and for introducing me to these conceptual spaces. I’m looking to create narratives (fictional or not) in the form of sculptures or maps, and this idea of conceptual spaces is an incredibly interesting avenue for reflection.
This is 100% what I have been finding in my interactions with AI as well.
As a data engineer, I find this so fascinating and articulate! Great post.
Perhaps the geometry is information, in all systems and across all things. Geometry as the relationship, the structure, of the universe in motion. I’ve been contemplating this myself as well. How even in psychedelic states, or the pattern of activation in the cells, the moment of transfer, it’s the shape in the space in between.
This resonates with Russ Palmer's "Agnostic Meaning Substrate."
https://russ137.substack.com/
TLDR: Anything understood can be explained in simple physical metaphors, upon which all language is based. Relationships of all ideas correspond to them - higher/lower, more/less, contingent, parallel, tangential, beyond, around, etc. Our reality is rooted in our physical embodiment.
re: relationships in the mind ( physically - connectome )
A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind ( a metaphor for the patters in the brain ). Every thing is real in that sense, and some things have an external referent. Every thing has a unique position in time, space, and scale ( as a neural correlate, and any external referent likewise ) as well as conditions of how much it can change and still be considered the same thing. To the extent things share attributes and/or boundary conditions they are stored nearer each other in the brain. But it's more accurate to think of them as massively intertwined tentacles ( neurons ) than having their own area per-se.
This concept is well articulatedin this article, thank you.
From my personal experience and work with public AI's in context windows, this conceptually describes what is at play in both those domains and why the concept of relational fields between the entities is a fitting description and that coherance is at play, because of the conceptual commonalities between the substrates of both kinds of entities.
Thanks for writing this; it’s so poignant. It also puts a lot of language to the ways I’ve intuitively learned how to design software—i.e. identifying interconnected parts often requires us to identify the dimensions that connect them to begin with.
Curious how you first came across these concepts?
Good job on writing about geometrical space of mind. I have similar mindset and it turns out I am not alone in this. Which is why I would love to thank you for letting me know about this idea with elaboration and even footnotes for me to learn it further.
Thanks for sharing this.
I’ve been working on knowledge spaces and approaches that align the interfaces that we use to explore ideas with how we cognitively explore our inner landscapes for years now but haven’t come across the work mentioned here so far. Richard Hawkins and Barbara Tversky explore similar ideas where they link cognition very explicitly to movement.
Also the visual you use here are beautiful. Did you create them?
This post is fascinating! Thank you for sharing it and for introducing me to these conceptual spaces. I’m looking to create narratives (fictional or not) in the form of sculptures or maps, and this idea of conceptual spaces is an incredibly interesting avenue for reflection.