I spent the morning reading the reaction to Yves Smith gut feeling. That feeling being the sub-conscious structuring of conceptual object relationships into a model that the conscious mind does yet know how to define or in what terms to define it.
Yves (Susan Webber) is my hero.
Yes there is a disturbance in the force.
Comments on what Yves said are crowd-source illumination on the nature of the disturbance. All of the the comments by the most recognized, respected and appreciated contributors are there. The frequency of of comments by "from Mexico" and all the other usual commentors tell how valuable the entire thread is.
I should, must, write so much more of my own thoughts on this.
I have exactly the same gut feeling but can put those feelings into a real object oriented model.
There are now more than 300 blog entry responses to what Yves wrote about her gut feeling. This one nails it about intuition:
"Moneta says:
The first thing we learned in math is how wrong intuition can be thanks to heuristics.
However, If you spend decades absorbing quality facts, experiences
and train your brain to account for heuristics, intuition can be a
powerful computer that can link many variables together.
Intuition is incredibly underrated in our society and that’s because
most people do not train their brains properly… Garbage in, garbage out."
Yves has a brilliant analytical mind. No garbage in it. I trust her intuition.
And this from the comments:
nobody says:
“The concept that the gut and the brain are closely connected,
and that this interaction plays an important part not only in
gastrointestinal function but also in certain feeling states and in
intuitive decision making, is deeply rooted in our language. Recent
neurobiological insights into this gut–brain crosstalk have revealed a
complex, bidirectional communication system that not only ensures the
proper maintenance of gastrointestinal homeostasis and digestion but is
likely to have multiple effects on affect, motivation and higher
cognitive functions, including intuitive decision making.”
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n8/full/nrn3071.html
***
“Dual-process approaches of decision-making examine the
interaction between affective/intuitive and deliberative processes
underlying value judgment. From this perspective, decisions are
supported by a combination of relatively explicit capabilities for
abstract reasoning and relatively implicit evolved domain-general as
well as learned domain-specific affective responses. One such approach,
the somatic markers hypothesis (SMH), expresses these implicit processes
as a system of evolved primary emotions supplemented by associations
between affect and experience that accrue over lifetime, or somatic
markers. In this view, somatic markers are useful only if their local
capability to predict the value of an action is above a baseline equal
to the predictive capability of the combined rational and primary
emotional subsystems. We argue that decision-making has often been
conceived of as a linear process: the effect of decision sequences is
additive, local utility is cumulative, and there is no strong
environmental feedback. This widespread assumption can have consequences
for answering questions regarding the relative weight between the
systems and their interaction within a cognitive architecture.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/cognitive_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00384/abstract
Think and feeling are two different things. Usually I go with my thinking but thinking was motivated by feeling. The thinking validates (maybe invalidates but that is not often) the feeling. Structures the feeling to rational form.
I called problem domains the "Big Marshmallow" Hard to come to grips with. Hard to get my arms around the problem, hard to get a grip on a handle. Hard to find the key to control it. That one to one core entity relationship on which the entire Marshmallow is structured. Its essence foundation and therefore controlling element. The explanation of the entire structural concept. That is the job of the analyst, the information engineer. The genius of our founding fathers in the concept of one person one vote. It took awhile to bring that concept to reality and it is still a work in progress. Implementation is flawed but the concept is not.
This "gut feeling" of Yves is a Big Marshmallow. There is a way to get a handle on it, to come to grips with it. I believe that way is through the structure of our monetary system. What money is. Not what money does. We must structure what money is. Give it a unit entity identity. Not merely a number representing an aggregate of debt.
The whole world revolves around money. Our conceptual creation. We believe that the world revolves around us. We are the center of the universe. The hero in our own story. We believed that the natural environment revolved around us. We are finding that revolve around it and place ourselves at the center at our own peril. We are learning that we revolve around the environment and if we do not fully comprehend that then we will be taught a painful natural lesson. Are being taught that lesson.
Our conceptual structures that order our society, our world all revolve around money. Money as a tool to extract from the environment. Natural or social environment. Money controls us because we make ourselves the center of the money world. We control money to serve when we create a conceptual information engineered structure that enables us to define money in terms of its own identity as a class object as well as discrete instances of a class: Serialized dollars with a unit value of one with a total finite controlled universe of money which exists on a centralized data base. Money that is not in circulation because it changes hands to new owners as it is spent/acquired through an endless circle of use as a decision making tool but is a static single dollar entity in a data base where the current owner (conceptual "holder" of that dollar in their virtual pocket) is always changing. Changing one dollar at a time in aggregate totals called a money transaction or change of holder ownership as money is used to buy and sell as resources are traded.
The idea is so simple but it threatens the entire existing world order at its very core: What money is. What money is (which we conceptually define) drives what money does. Money is currently a representation of debt. Its purpose and object entity identity is debt. Debt is only a single application program of money. We have made it the operating system. The cart is driving the horse. The entire premise of the money system is wrong and must change. We have a computer based information structure and methodology used to create that structure. Simple apply the model to money and reason tells us what the money model should be: Serialized, digitized dollars all valued at a unit of one existing as a fixed record in a central data base where the "current owner" associated with that single dollar is always changing over time. Once created to serve our purpose that single dollar "lives" as long as we need dollars in a monetary system upon which to structure our societies. This structure applies ultimately to "World Money System" National Sovereignty is currently under attack by the debt money system and is being eroded by it.
We collectively must be the masters of the monetary system design operating system structure, not the bankers that designed an application program of debt money to be the basis of the operating system. It serves them in their sub-optimized financial world where what it does for them is exactly what it was designed to do.
In my wildest science fiction fantasy that is exactly the secret objective of the NSA. Under the cover story of protection the Homeland Security it is to become the infa structure of a new world money system with the US serialized digitized Dollar as its reserve currency.
That is fantasy but it would make a good movie. The kicker is that China is the one that makes the big move to do it. The USA could not allow this at any cost.
A single Fundamental Truth at any cost lowers the price of all other truth.
I really like the gut feel of that thought. There must be something to it in a structural analysis. Something to design and build an entire system on? Just a feeling. I will have to think about it. Gives some structure to that "Big Marshmallow."
Own the money system and dominate the world. The money system is the operating system. Everything else is just and endless progression of increasingly useful application programs that utilize what the basic operating system "is" to "do" something.
