Posts Tagged ‘johann wolfgang von goethe’

About the Law of KLeiber

Friday, October 29th, 2010

A power law relates one variable to another raised to a constant power. The general form takes y = xa, where y and x are variables, and a is a constant exponent.

A power law exhibits the property of scale invariance. When you multiply the Scale (x) with a factor b the function (y =  baxa) does not change its Shape.

In 1817 Goethe wrote his book ”Zur Morphologie“. This book was the start of a new science called Morphology, the Science of the Shapes.

In his book Goethe describes the so called Uhrplant, the Primal Plant, which is based on the shape of the Leaf. Goethe believed that every Plant was a Leaf within a Leaf within a Leaf.

At the time of Goethe the concept of the fractal was not known. It was developed in 1975 by Benois Mandelbrot (“The Fractal Geometry of Nature”).

A fractal is a self-similar structure. It’s shape repeats itself on every level of expansion.  Some fractals are scale-invariant.

Scale Invariance in the Leaf

The scale invariant fractal structure of the Leaf

About Kleiber’s Law

Metabolism is the process by which your body converts what you eat and drink into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories in food and beverages are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function.

The oldest and best known Power Law is Kleiber’s law devised by the Swiss-American zoologist Max Kleiber in 1932.

Kleiber’s Law, MR = W3/4, describes the relationship of the metabolic rate (MR) to the biomass W, raised to an exponent.

Kleiber’s law means that a cat’s metabolic rate is not a hundred or 21.5 times greater than a mouse’s, but about 31.6 — 100 to the three-quarter power.

This relationship seems to hold across the animal kingdom  and it has since been extended all the way down to single-celled organisms, and possibly within the cells themselves to the internal structures called mitochondria, the cellular powerplants, that turn nutrients into energy. Mitochondria have many features in common with bacteria.

The law of Kleiber is  also applicable to super-organisms” like ant colonies, Cities and Eco-Systems.

Because of Economies of Scale, larger and more complex forms of organisms need less energy for each individual cell. They grow and reproduce more slowly and they live longer.

Kleiber's law

Kleiber's law

About Fractals and Kleiber’s Law

Kleiber’s law can be explained from a general model that describes how essentialmaterials are transported through Space-Filling Fractal Networks of Branching Tubes.

Goethe was right. The leaf is a one of the fundamental structures of Nature.

The factor 3/4 (3/3+1)  is a consequence of the fact that a Fractal Structure has to incorporate a not-Fractal Structure, 3-Dimensional Space.

One of the Bilateria: The Octopus

One of our fellow Bilaterians: The Octopus

About Bilateria

About 590 million years ago, the Central Nervous System (CNS), the Brain, appeared.

The organisms with a CNS (including the Humans), the Bilateria, are able to Act and React to a Possible Harmful Stimulus.

The CNS of the Bilateria is  a result of  an Increase in Competition between the Life Forms that came out of the Continuing Fusion of  the Cooperative Life Forms, the Bacteria. The first step in this proces was the Tube of the Sponge.

The fundamental Bilaterian Body Shape is a Tube running from Mouth to Anus, and a second Tube called the Notochord, with an especially large Sphere at the front, called the “Brain“.

The Bilateria have Five Body Spheres (1) the Brain; (2) the Spinal Cord; (3) the Heart and Lungs; (4) the Digestive Organs and Kidneys; (5) the Bladder and Reproductive organs.


About the Tiny Spheres of the Lungs

When we look at the Lungs, one of the Fractal Tube-like branching-structures of the human organism, we can see that the Branches end in Nodes called the alveoli (“little cavities“). The end-nodes of the branching system are tiny Spheres.


The Alveoli use another basic structure of Nature: The Sphere

In the tiny Spheres the Exchange takes place of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen between the Lungs and the Blood-Vessels. Each human lung contains about 600 million alveoli.

Water diffuses from the alveoli cells into the alveoli so that they are constantly moist.  Oxygen dissolves in this water before diffusing through the cells into the blood.

The Oxygen-rich blood returns to the Heart via the pulmonary veins to be pumped back into circulation. The Carbon Dioxide is pumped out by the Lungs.

In the many million Small Spherical End-Nodes Two Circulatory Systems, the Cardiovascular System (Heart) and Pulmonary System (Lungs), are Connected.

The Big Structures of Nature are able to Scale because the Connection-Points of the Networks are Very Small.

They are reusable on Every Scale that is Bigger than the Scale of the Connection Points.

We will see that all the other Fractal Systems in our Body are based on the Same Principle.



About the Tube of the Digestive System

The Tube contains the Digestive System. It breaks-down larger food molecules into smaller ones that can be absorbed into the blood stream. This happens in the Small Intestine in the vili and microvilli.

The villi (“shaggy hair“)  are tiny, finger-like projections that are approximately 0.5-1mm in length. The microvilli are mechanosensors and have a lot in common with the flagellum (“the roter“) of a bacterium. Microvilli appear in many places in the body. They are also of importance on the cell surface of white blood cells, as they aid in the migration of white blood cells.

The Tube of our Digestive System is highly similar to the Tube of the Sponge, the first fusion of the Bacteria in a  more efficient metabolic structure.

The Output part of the Tube is called the Large Intestine (Colon). Its function is to absorb water from the remaining indigestible food matter, and then to pass Useless Waste Material from the body. The large intestine houses over 700 species of bacteria that perform a variety of functions.


The Liver Fractal

About the Chemical Factory of the Liver Cell.

The Liver is  a Fractal Branching System that detoxifies harmful substances absorbed via the Small Intestines.  It’s basic structure is the Liver Cell.

The Chemical reactions in the liver cells produces a lot of waste heat. This is carried round the body in the blood and warms less active regions.

The Liver regulates the amount of Blood Sugar, Lipids, Amino Acids.  The Liver is the Storage House of  Blood, Iron, Vitamine A, D, B12  and Clycogen, the Source of Energy of the Body.

The Liver produces Bile that is stored in the Gall Bladder. Bile is used to dissolve fat.

White Blood Cell

The White Blood Cell

About the Spleen and the Immune System

Another Fractal Branching System, the Lymphatic System ( “The Immune System“, Spleen),  maintains the health of the body by protecting it from invasions by harmful pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. These pathogens are the cause of many diseases, so it is necessary to detect and eliminate them rapidly.

The Lymphatic System is connected to the Blood System and produces the White Blood Cells (Lymphocites).  The Lymphocites are the Basic Unit of the Human Defense System. They look like Bacteria.

A lymphocite fits with a pathogen

A lymphocite fits with a pathogen

The surface of a lymphocyte is covered with a large number of identical receptors. Recognition and destruction occurs when the receptors of the lymphocyte fit like a key into the surface of the pathogen.

The Immune System is a Highly Adaptive System. It is able to generate new types of Lymphocites out of a Library of DNA-components.



About the Kidneys and the Bladder

The Kidneys serve the body as a natural filter of the blood, and remove wastes which are diverted to the urinary bladder. The Nephron is the basic structural and functional unit of the kidney. In humans, a normal kidney contains 800,000 to 1.5 million nephrons. Nephrons are wave-like structures. Its chief function is to regulate the concentration of water and soluble substances like sodium salts by filtering the blood.

About the Electro Magnetic System

The last  Fractal Branching System, the Meridians, is a Fast Electro-Magnetic Channel that connects to Organs to the Spine and the CNS.

The Ancient Chinese Scientists believed that this System pumps its Energy, the Chi Force, out of the Earth Magnetic Field.

The Ancient Egyptian Scientists believed the same thing. They named  the Four Cavities the Four Suns of Horus and the Spine, the Djed Pillar (Dj means “Snake”).

The Five Organs of Acupuncture

The Five Systems of Acupuncture

About the number Five

The number Five (4 +1 ) plays an important role in Ancient Chinese Medicine.

The Central Fractal System, the One (1), the Fire System, the Blood System, with its Center the Heart,  contains Four (4) Links to the Other Systems.

The Four Systems are combinations of Two Forces, Expansion and Compression.

The Two Forces came out of One Force (“The Void“).

Two Systems contain the same combination (Expansion x Expansion (Wood, Gall Bladder, Liver, Three Heater), Compression x Compression (Metal, Lungs)).

Two Systems combine Expansion and Compression in a different order (Expansion x Compression, Compression x Expansion). They create a Wave (Water, Bladder, Kidney) or Spiral -like (Earth, Immune System) structures.

The Five Spheres of the Body are incorporated in one Super Protective Sphere, the Coelum, the Skin.

In the Human Embryo the First step of Division of the Cells is between the Coelum,the Multi-Cellar Body, and the Brain, the CNS. In the first step the One was divided into the Two, the Actor and the Monitor.

The CNS  “mirrors” the activities of  the Body and acts as a “predictive simulator”.

The Shape of the CNS is a mirror (Up-Side-Down) of the Shape of the Multic-Cellular Body.

The Bilateria are a Fuse of two Organisms in which one organism changed into the Body and the other changed into the Brain.

These two structures are always competing in the Human Being.

The Brain is Looking Up at the Sky. The Body is Looking Down at Mother Earth, it’s Creator.

The Brain and the Body are United in  the Heart, the Balancer of Body and Soul and the Keeper of the Rhythm (The Pericardium).


Sponge, The Tube

About Bacteria

The Body Shape of the Tube was inherited from the first Multi-Cellular Organism, the Sponge. The Sponge is a  Static Cluster of Amoeba, free moving bacteria, that are propelled by their flagellum (a Roter).


The Basic Building Block of the Body, the Bacterium

Bacteria are small chemical factories that are able to share and combine their production processes by exchanging DNA.

With their flagellum the Bacteria Explore the environment to find the chemical food they need. When they have found food the Circulation of the Flagellum moves into the Opposite Direction.

The bacterium integrates incoming chemical signals during a few-second period of its travels, and adjusts its direction of advance accordingly.

The integration is achieved through temporary chemical modifications to molecules located in the bounding membrane, which transfer nutrients to the cytoplasm, and also through changes to certain other molecules in the interior of the cell. Such integration is essentially a short-term memory mechanism.

Bacteria exchange their DNA

Bacteria exchange their DNA

At a certain moment the Bacteria got together because the Sponge is a much more Efficient Metabolic Structure than a group of Free Moving Bacteria.

Strangely enough the DNA of the Sponge already contains the complete Bleuprint of the Humans.

Scientists now believe that most species on earth are a result of a loss of DNA from the original Bleuprint that was created when the Bacteria finally fused into one Organism.

About the Nano-Level

Recently scientists have found Electric Fields as strong as 15 million volts per meter in the Nano-Parts of the Cells. These fields are as strong as those produced in lightning bolts.

It’s not clear what causes these strong fields or what they might mean but they could account for a until now unknown (by Science) or well-known (by the Old Scientists, Chi) Source of  Bodily Energy.

The nano-parts of the Cell could be the very very very small universal building blocks of Nature.

What has Happened?

In the beginning the Chemical Soup generated Self-Reproducing Chemical Factories.

These Factories combined into bigger Factories by exchanging and combining their factory-designs.

Every time when the Factories fused they became more Efficient, Bigger, Stronger, Older and therefore more Competitive.

When the Factories became more competitive they had to Protect themselves against the other Factories.

To Protect themselves the Multi-Cellular Systems started to Sense in Many Directions.

In the first step a Nerve-Net was created.

In the second step one part of the Organism turned Upside-Down and became a Specialized Predictive System (the CNS).

This part fused with the Bodily Part creating one Organism that contained Two Organisms.

The Bilateria, the Organisms with Two Complementary Parts, Body and Mind, were born.

Some of the Bilateria called Humans fused in Social Structures and the Social Structures fused and fused and became more efficient, bigger, stronger, older and therefore more competitive.

In due time they will Rule the Earth and will start to create bigger and bigger systems until they will rule the complete Universe.

To make this possible the Humans need every other part of Nature to Sustain their Growth. This will certainly result in a huge Collapse of their own Eco-System.

The main reason this is happening is that the Humans forgot to Copy the Designs of Mother Nature.

The Brain (Thinking and Sensing, Left Brain), Looking Up at the Sky,  believed it could do a much Better Job than it’s counterpart the Multi-Cellular Body (Emotions and Imagination, Right Brain), Looking Down at the Earth, the Source of All Creation.

Kleiber’s Law shows that we are now using 122 times more Energy per Person than we really would need if we would Scale in the right way.

What can we learn from Kleiber’s Law?

All organisms including the humans depend for their maintenance and reproduction on the close integration of numerous subunits.

These components need to beserviced in a relatively `democratic’ and efficient fashionto supply energy, remove waste  and regulate activity.

Natural Selection solved this problem byevolving hierarchical fractal-like branching networks, whichdistribute Energy, Information and Materials between Big Reservoirs (“Lungs”) and Small Connection Points (“Alveoli”) of other Circulatory Systems (“Blood”).

This Fractal Bottum-Up approach is highly effective and efficient.

The not-fractal, Top-Down,  machinery designed by the Humans is Scaled with a factor 1 so we can improve a lot by copying Mother Nature.


About Goethe and Morphology

About the Heart Chakra or Why the Heart connects the Brain and the Body

How to use the Heart to find Balance

About the Heart and Ethics

Why Humans look a lot like Bacteria

About Kleibers Law and the Rain Forest

About the Five Worldviews

A movie about Fractal Structures in Nature

About the Fusion of Water in the Cell

About the Number Five in Chinese Medicine

Why Humans are part of Super Organisms

How the Humans evolved out of the Bacteria

About the Left and the Right Brain

About the Void

How the Heart synchronizes the Body

About the Fast Transmisson Channel in the Body

About Kleiber’s Law

A general model to explain Kleiber’s Law

About Kleiber’s Law and the Growth of Cities

About the Immune System

About Bacteria

About the Law of Kleiber and Ant Colonies

The terrestrial evolution of metabolism and life

A movie about the origin of vertebrates

About Morphology or How Alan Turing Made the Dream of Goethe Come True

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

The Ancient Greeks believed that the images of waking life and dreams came from the same source, Morpheus (Μορφέας, Μορφεύς), “He who Shapes“.

The Science of the Shapes, Morphology, was created and named by Goethe in his botanical writings (“Zur Morphologie“, 1817).

Goethe used comparative anatomical methods, to discover a primal plant form that would contain all the others-the Urpflanze. Goethe being a Romantic Idealist hoped that Morphology would Unify Science and Art.

The Uhrplant shows itself also in the Lungs and Riversystems

The Uhrplant shows itself also in the Lungs and Riversystems

“The Primal Plant is going to be the strangest creature in the world, which Nature herself shall envy me. With this model and the key to it, it will be possible to go on forever inventing plants and know that their existence is logical”. Nature always plays, and from which she produces her great variety. Had I the time in this brief span of life I am confident I could extend it to all the realms of Nature – the whole realm“.

Goethe (wikipedia)

Goethe (wikipedia)

Hundred years later in the 1920s Goethe’s dream came true. Morphology moved outside Biology to other parts of Science due to the works of D’Arcy Thompson’s On Growth and Form, Oswald Spengler Morphology of History, Carol O. Sauer Morphology of Landscape, Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale and Alfred North Whitehead Process and Reality.

Goethe observed nature and reflected on similar structures. He believed that there was something behind this similarity, an archetypal plant.

According to Goethe the archetypal plant was the leaf (“While walking in the Public Gardens of Palermo it came to me in a flash that in the organ of the plant which we are accustomed to call the leaf lies the true Proteus who can hide or reveal himself in all vegetal forms. From first to last the plant is nothing but leaf“).

At this moment scientists know the reason why the leaf is the most important structure of the plant. It is a solar collector full of photosynthetic cells.

The energy of the sun provides the energy to transform water from the roots gathered by the leafs and carbon dioxide out of the air also gathered by the leafs, into sugar and oxygen. Plants are structures with many leaves. These leafs shield other leafs from collecting sunlight and water.

To solve this problem a plant has to optimize its structure to collect enough Sunlight and Water. The process of Optimization is not a Central Coordinated action. Every leaf tries to find the best place in the Sun on its own. This place determinates the growth of the next level of branches and leafs.

Goethe observed a pattern and deduced a structure, the leaf, the Uhrplanze. What Goethe really observed was not a Static Uhrplant but the Dynamic Process of the Branching of all kinds of leaves in all kinds of plants (Morpho-Genesis).

The leafs of the plants are not the main target of the morphogenesis of the plant. The visible External and the invisible Internal Forms or Organs are one of the many solutions of an equation with many variables and constraints. The optimal solution is reached by experimenting (“Nature always plays”).

Many solutions fail but some survive (Evolution of the Fittest). When a solution survives it is used as a Foundation to find new rules for more specific problems (Specialization). When the environment, the context, changes old rules have to be replaced by new rules (a Paradigm Shift).

The Fractal Geometry of Nature

The Fractal Geometry of Nature

New mathematical paradigms in the field of the Machines and Languages (Alan Turing, The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis) and the Self-Referencial Geometry of Nature (Benoît Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature) have stimulated further investigation in the Field of Morphology.

In 1931, in a monograph entitled On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems Gödel proved that it is impossible to define a theory that is both Self-Consistent and Complete. The paper of Gödel destroyed the ambitions of the Mathematicians at that time to define one theory that explains everything.

In 1936 Alan Turing produced a paper entitled On Computable Numbers. In this paper Alan Turing defined a Universal Machine now called a Turing Machine. A Turing machine contains an infinite tape that can move backwards and forwards and a reading/writing device that changes the tape. The Turing Machine represents every Theory we can Imagine.

Turing proved that the kinds of questions the machine can not solve are about its own Performance. The machine is Unable to Reflect about Itself. It needs another independent machine, an Observer or Monitor to do this.

It can be proved that Turing proved the so called Incompleteness Theorem and the Undecidability Theorem of Gödel in a very simple way.


The Eniac

In 1943 Turing helped to Crack the Codes of the Germans in the Second World War. At that time the first computers were build (Eniac, Collossus).

It was very difficult to Program a Computer. This problem was solved when Noam Chomsky defined the Theory of Formal Grammars in 1955 (The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory).

When you want to define a Language you need two things, an Alphabet of symbols and Rules. The symbols are the End-Nodes (Terminals) of the Network of Possibilities that is produced when the Rules (Non-Terminals) are Applied. The Alphabet and the (Production- or Rewriting) rules are called a Formal Grammar.

If the Alphabet contains an “a” and a “p” the rules S→AAP, A→”a” and P→”p” produce the result “aap”. Of course this system can be replaced by the simple rule S→”aap”. The output becomes an infinite string when one of the rules contains a Self-Reference. The rules A→a and S→AS produce an Infinity String of “a’-s (“aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa….”).

The system becomes more complicated when we put terminals and rules (non-terminals) on the Left Side. The System S→aBSc, S→abc, Ba→aB and Bb→bb produces strings like, “abc”, “aabbcc” and “aaabbbccc”. In fact it produces all the strings a**n/b**n/c**n with n>0.

The inventor of the theory of Formal Grammar, Chomsky, defined a Hierarchy of Languages. The most complex languages in his hierarchy are called Context-Dependent and Unrestricted. They represent complex networks of nodes.

A language where the left-hand side of each production rule consists of only a single nonterminal symbol is called a Context Free language. Context Free Languages are used to define Computer Languages. Context Free Languages are defined by a hierarchical structure of nodes. Human Languages are dependent on the context of the words that are spoken.

It is therefore impossible to describe a Human Language, Organisms, Organisations and Life Itself with a Context Free Computer Language.

Context Free Systems with very simple rule-systems produce natural and mathematical structures. The System A → AB, B → A models the Growth of Algae and the Fibonacci Numbers.

A Recognizer or Parser determinates if the output of a formal grammar is produced by the grammar. Parsers are used to check and translate a Program written in a Formal (Context Free) Language to the level of the Operating System of the Computer.

grammarRegular and Context Free Grammars are easily recognized because the process of parsing is linear (causal, step by step). The stucture of the language is a hierarchy.

The recognizer (now called a Push-Down Machine) needs a small memory to keep the books.

Context Dependent (L-systems) and Unrestricted Grammars are difficult to recognize or are not recognizable in practice because the parser needs a huge sometimes Infinite Memory or Infinite Time to complete its task.

To find the Context the Recognizer has to jump backwards and forwards through the infinite string to detect the pattern.

If the network loops the recognizer will Never Stop (“The Halting Problem“).

Turing proved that the Halting Problem is Undecidable. We will Never Know for Sure if an Unrestricted Grammar contains Loops.

The Rules and the Output of Unrestricted Grammars Change and never stop Changing. Our Reality is certainly Context Dependent and perhaps Unrestricted.

Parsing or Recognizing looks like (is similar with) the process of Scientific Discovery. A theory, a Grammar of a Context-Free Systems (“aaaaaaaaaaa…”) is recognizable (testable) in Finite Time with a Finite Memory. Theories that are Context Dependent or Unrestricted cannot be proved although the Output of the Theory generates Our Observation of Nature. In this case we have to trust Practice and not Theory.

cellular automata

A 3D Cellular Automaton

In 2002 the Mathematician Stephen Wolfram wrote the book A New Kind of Science.

In this book he tells about his long term Experiments with his own Mathematical Program Mathematica. Wolfram defined a System to Generate and Experiment with Cellular Automata.

Wolfram believes that the Science of the Future will be based on Trial and Error using Theory Generators (Genetic Algorithms). The big problem with Genetic Algorithms is that they generate patterns we are unable to understand. We cannot  find Metaphors and Words to describe the Patterns in our Language System.

This problem was adressed by the famous Mathematician Leibniz who called this the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Leibniz believed that our Universe was based on Simple Understandable Rules that are capable of generating Highly Complex Systems.

It is now very clear that the Self-Referencial Structures, the Fractals, of Mandelbrot are the solution of this problem.

The Scientific Quest at this moment is to find the most simple Fractal Structure that is capable of explaining the Complexity of our Universe. It looks like this fractal has a lot to do with the Number 3.

It is sometimes impossible to define a structured process to recognize (to prove) a Grammar. Therefore it is impossible to detect the rules of Mother Nature by a Structured process. The rules of Mother Nature are detected by Chance just like Goethe discovered the Uhrplanze. Science looks a lot like (is similar with) Mother Nature Herself.

When a Grammar is detected it is possible to use this grammar as a Foundation to find new solutions for more specific problems (Specialization, Add More Rules) or when the system is not able to respond to its environment it has to Change the Rules (a Paradigm Shift). All the time the result of the System has to be compared with Mother Nature herself (Recognizing, Testing, Verification).

Turing proved that if Nature is equivalent to a Turing machine we, as parts of this machine, can not generate a complete description of its functioning.

In other words, a Turing machine, A Scientific Theory, can be a very useful tool to help humans design another, improved Turing Machine, A new Theory, but it is not capable of doing so on its own – A Scientific Theory, A System, can not answer Questions about Itself.

The solution to this problem is to Cooperate. Two or more (Human) Machines, A Group, are able to Reflect on the Other. When the new solution is found the members of the Group have to Adopt to the new solution to move on to a New Level of Understanding and drop their own Egoistic Theory.

Each of the individuals has to alter its Own Self and Adapt it to that of the Group. It is proved that Bacteria use this Strategy and are therefore unbeatable by our tactics to destroy them.

Turing proved that Intelligence requires Learning, which in turn requires the Human Machine to have sufficient Flexibility, including Self Alteration capabilities. It is further implied that the (Human) Machine should have the Freedom to make Mistakes.

Perfect Human Machines will never Detect the Patterns of Nature because they get Stuck in their Own Theory of Life.

The Patterns of Turing

The Patterns of Turing

The Only ONE who is able to Reflect on the Morphogenesis of Mother Nature is the Creator of the Creator of Mother Nature, The Void.

Gregory Chaitin used the theory of Chomsky and proved that we will never be able to understand  The Void.

The Void is beyond our Limits of Reason. Therefore the first step in Creation will always be  a Mystery.

At the end of his life (he commited suicide) Alan Turing started to investigate Morphology.

As you can see the Patterns of Alan Turing are created by combining many Triangels. The Triangel is called the Trinity in Ancient Sciences.

According to the Tao Tse King, “The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things”, which means that the Trinity is the Basic Fractal Pattern of the Universe.

In modern Science this pattern is called the Bronze Mean.

It generates so called Quasi Crystals and the Famous Penrose Tilings.

The Bronze Mean is represented by the Ancient Structure of the Sri Yantra (“Devine Machine”).

Goethe was not the real discoverer of Morphology. The knowledge was already there 8000 years ago.


About the Observer and Second Order Cybernetics

A PDF About the Morphology of Music.

The origins of life and context-dependent languages

A Website About the Morphology of Botanic Systems

A Website About the Morphology of Architectural Systems

A Plant Simulator using Morphology

About Intelligent Design

The Mathematical Proof of Gödel of the Existence of God

About Bacteria 

About the Bronze Mean

About the Trinity

About Learning Styles

Friday, February 15th, 2008

E-Learning is one of the results of the E-Commerce Bubble. During the E-Commerce Bubble everything you can imagine would be changed into a booming business if it was combined with The Internet (a Website).

When you would use the Internet you could learn Everywhere at Every place at Any time. Every “old-fashioned” system that was supporting an Educational Institution was E-ed. It was provided with a “web-site”-interface. Behind this interface nothing changed.

The “old-fashioned” E-Learning packages were designed to automate a professional educational environment. The only thing that changed was that the books (or the PPT’s) were put on a screen.

E-Learning is an example of a technological view on Education. Every new technology that emerges has-to-be used because they (the learners) use it and because they use it it will help them to be educated.

We HAVE TO use the mobile phone and wiki and forums and web-cams and 3-D and games and web 2.0 (or 3.0) and …. If we don’t do that we will be out of the competition..

The big question is are new technologies really helpful to improve the current learning environment?

My answer is that it matters and it does not matter. It matters because we have to stay in contact with “real life”" and it does not matter because an effective learning environment has nothing to do with technology in general.

We learn by practicing and every environment that is related to the practice we want to acquire works fine. So if you want to become an account-manager and to sell you need an mobile-phone you have to learn to use a mobile phone.

But when you want to learn how to fight terrorists you need to learn to use other tools also.

Is it possible to learn “how to design” on a computer?
Is it possible to learn to meditate on a computer?
Is it possible to learn “to be creative” on a computer

We don’t learn to play the piano on a mobile phone and we don’t learn to use a mobile phone on a piano but a computer (or better software) could be programmed to simulate a piano.

Is it possible to learn mathematics on a computer?

I ask you these questions because I hope you feel that they are related to different “fields” of learning.

You could learn “how to meditate” on a computer but practicing meditation is something else.

You could use the computer to create but painting and singing and making poetry needs something else.

They need an “internal tool” that has to develop itself. This internal tool could be called a talent and a talent is a “given thing”. We are (by definition) born with a talent. Goethe called the “internal” tools organs.

We are not only equipped with fysical organs but are also equipped with other non-fysical organs. They make it possible to see and to hear. Organs or talents are specialized structures or functions that are there when you are born. They have to be trained by invoking them.

They are invoked by giving them a challenge. Sometimes the challenges is a “cognitive” challenge (mathematics, patterns) but others need a “manual” challenge. They are “handy”.

When “handy” people are forced to do “cognitive” training they are not challenged and they fail.

The current System is not aimed at developing a talent. Some Systems are specialized in certain talents (Art, Top Sport) but some talents are not recognized. They are not recognized and even “killed” by the System.

I was born with a Mathematical Talent. Later I found out that this talent was inherited from my mothers family (Van Biezen). My talent was merely killed by the System.

It was killed because my talent is a specialization and a specialization implies also short-comings. One of my short-comings is my memory. I am able to remember (and recognize) patterns but I am not able to remember lists. I failed school because I was unable to learn the lists in foreign languages.

The strange thing is that I don’t have problems learning to speak a language. A language is not a list of words and learning a language is not about learning a list that maps words. If translating one language in the other was that easy the perfect translator would be on the market for a long time.

The fact that people are different creates a big problem when you want to create an educational factory. The factory is only able to do its job when the Input is “the same”.

If the input is divers you have to create a diversity of production-lines and you have to navigate the resources through these lines at the right moment.

When everybody is different the problem is unsolvable but when we are able to determinate a limited amount of differences current logistic approaches are capable of solving the problem.

The current logistic system in the Educational Factory is aimed at optimizing the activities of the Teacher (Class, Subject). He (or she) is the most important asset and the pupils have to follow the planning of the Logistic System.

If we would change the priority and put the learner in the centre and we would recognize that the development of a talent is the most beautifull thing a human being is able to do we have to change the logistics. Computers are beautifull tools to help to accomplish this.

The interesting point is that it is possible to determine a limited amount of “learning-styles” related to certain classes of talents. To my surprise nobody is using this knowledge. Just one learning style is used called Instruction (Telling “How-to-do-it”).

About Color and Music

Saturday, November 10th, 2007

kandinskyIn 1999 John Gage wrote the book Color and Culture, Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction. The book explains the way people “think/sense” about Color in History.

I use the word think/sense because I believe there are many ways to look and a one of them is “to Look by Thinking“.

The Science that is trying to explain this phenomenon is called Phenomenology.

I know this sounds strange to you but there are many examples to prove that people don’t see something because their theory about the world is not able to explain what they are seeing.

anatomical lessonA very remarkable researcher who has discovered many phenomena is the Dutch Psychiatrist Jan Hendrik van den Berg .

I read his books when I was a student at the University.

One of his books called the Opened Body (Het geopende Lichaam 1959) is about the History of Anatomy.

In this book he shows that it took a very long time before it was accepted that the Heart was divided into two Chambers. Until that time The Heart was a Whole.

Long after the discovery of the two independent circulatory systems by William Harvey the heart was pierced (!) to show the interconnection between the chambers that was not there.

The Old Scientists simply adjusted reality to their theory and nobody complained about that.

John Cage shows the same things again and again. He shows that the experience of Colors changed because artists started to use pigments.

A Color became a mix of Basic colors. Colors changed into Parts that could be Combined.

At this moment almost nobody understands that Colors change by the influence of other Colors in their environment.

sunset2Before that time Color was a Field. Colors (and Images) were created by adding Layers.

When you see Colors as a Field you understand why Colors are influenced by other Colors. They look like Music and produce Overtones.

The strange thing is that when you start to experiment with Colors by doing a course in Painting (I did) you recognize immediately that there is something wrong with you’re Think/Sensing-system.

When you Paint with your Mind you will never create what you See. You have to Look without Thinking.

Imagine John Cage, Jan Van Den Berg, Husserl and Heidegger and many others are Right. There are many simple experiments to prove their point.

goethe color theoryWhen you want to do a very simple experiment just do what Goethe did. He wrote a book called Color Theory that contains all his experiments. Goethe used the German word “Schauen” to explain the difference between Seeing with the Mind and Seeing with the Intuition or the Consciousness. You could translate “Schauen”  in “Carefull Observation“.

If they are Right you could try to remove your Thinking (your theory about the outside world) when you Observe with Care.

If you do this you’re world will change. You will see Colors and Overtones in your Environment you have never seen before. The World will look much brighter.

Have a Try.

Catching the Light: About Steiner, Goethe and The Placebo Effect

Wednesday, June 6th, 2007

When I was working at ABN-bank I was doing a project to reorganize the Archives of the bank. One of my colleagues was heavily inspired by the work of Rudolph Steiner. He was very busy to create a new type of bank based on his ideas (now The Triodos-Bank). 


At the same time I met people that were practicing his ideas in the process of automation and organizational change processes. I loved what they were doing so I started to read his Books. 


Steiner came back in my life when I wanted to know more about Colors. I bought the Color Theory of Goethe and I found out that Goethe was the person that inspired Steiner the most. 


Goethe and Steiner became a force of Inspiration for Me and my Wife. She started to do Art-courses and I saw that she loved it. She even considered to become an Art-Therapist. We visited the Goetheaneum in Dornach (Zwitserland). We found an Antroposophic general practitioner. She uses Homeopathic medicine. I practiced Eurhythmics and lately I got a treatment to strengthen my “boundaries” where they use the Essential Oil of Flowers.


Arthur Zajonc is a well known Professor of Physics. He is also inspired by Rudolph Steiner and Goethe. Many people think the ideas of Steiner are weird and non-scientific but as you see even a professor of Physics knows that what he is saying to the world is of tremendous value. 


Arthur Zajonc wrote a beautifull book called “Catching The Light”. The book tries to explain Light.  It uses two perspectives. The perspective of Physics and the perspective of Steiner.


Zajonc shows that Science and Spirituality are basically telling the same story. Mind, Spirit and Soul are seeing the same thing but use different words to describe the same phenomenon.


 The most interesting part of the book is about the Imagination. Experiments show that we don’t see with our eyes. We see the world through our Imagination. 


Experiments in Physics show also that our Imagination (Our Creative Power) is controlling the Material world. Matter (Photons) is doing what the Imagination wants them it to do. We Get what we See.


Many people don’t understand the impact of this. They Think we are controlled by an outside Force (Fate) and they don’t realize that everything they are encountering in Life is created by Themselves. They don’t want to see that the Outside World is reflecting their personal creative process. If things go wrong they don’t realize that they want them to go wrong.


How can we make things go right? It’s simple. Imagine they are going right. Think positive.

Do you know why Medicine is working? 

Because we Believe its Working. 

I Love the Placebo effect!

How to Remove The Mask We are Waring

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007

Last night I had a discussion. Somebody asked me the question: Do you love yourselve? I could not answer this question.

On the rational level I don’t know what “love” and “yourselve” is. Lets try do define something. To define something I always use the website

The website defines the term “love” in the following way: O.E. lufu “love, affection, friendliness,” from P.Gmc. *lubo (cf. O.Fris. liaf, Ger. lieb, Goth. liufs “dear, beloved;” not found elsewhere as a noun, except O.H.G. luba, Ger. Liebe), from PIE *leubh- “to care, desire, love” (cf. L. lubet, later libet “pleases;” Skt. lubhyati “desires;” O.C.S. l’ubu “dear, beloved;” Lith. liaupse “song of praise”). Meaning “a beloved person” is from c.1225. The sense “no score” (in tennis, etc.) is 1742, from the notion of “playing for love,” i.e. “for nothing” (1678). Love-letter is attested from c.1240; love-song from c.1310. To be in love with (someone) is from 1508. Love life “one’s collective amorous activities” is from 1919, originally a term in psychological jargon. Phrase make love is attested from 1580 in the sense “pay amorous attention to;” as a euphemism for “have sex,” it is attested from c.1950. Love child “child born out of wedlock,” first attested 1805, from earlier love brat (17c.). Lovesick is attested from 1530; lovelorn from 1634 (see lose). Phrase for love or money “for anything” is attested from 1590. To fall in love is attested from 1423. The phrase no love lost (between two people) is ambiguous and was used 17c. in ref. to two who love each other well (c.1640) as well as two who have no love for each other (1622).

To make it simple lets take the meaning “to care”.

So we can rephrase the question as “Do take care of yourselve” and now the answer is simple “Yes, I try to do this”.

We can make it more complex by defining the term “self”.

The website defines it as “O.E. self, seolf, sylf “one’s own person, same,” from P.Gmc. *selbaz (cf. O.N. sjalfr, O.Fris. self, Du. zelf, O.H.G. selb, Ger. selbst, Goth. silba), P.Gmc. *selbaz, from PIE *sel-bho-, from base *s(w)e- “separate, apart” (see idiom).

To make it simple again we use the meaning “one owns person”.

So we can rephares the question again in “do you take care of your own person”.

Wauw now it becomes complex. What the hell is person?

Ok again we define the term: c.1225, from O.Fr. persone “human being” (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona “human being,” originally “character in a drama, mask,” possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable “pleasing in one’s person” is first attested c.1430. In person “by bodily presence” is from 1568. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.

A person is a “character in a drama, a mask”.

So we come back with a new question “do you take care of your own mask” or “do you take care of the mask you are waring called self?”

Now we are getting somewhere.

We are all actors in a play and in this play and she wanted to find out if I was able to play the role of “a self” who is caring for “itself”.

In the play there are two actors “self” and “self” who are caring for eachother.

Next question. Who is watching the play (the observer)?

Again the answer could me “the self”.

So “self and self are caring for eachother and are also watching the process of caring.

Is this possible?

Now I want to direct you to a document I have written (sorry in Dutch) about thinking.

In Chapter 2 I cite Bakhtin (my favorite philosopher)).

Here are some of his insights. They speak for themselves.

‘All our dialogues are taking place against the background of the responsive understanding of an invisibly present third party who stands above all the participants in the dialogue… The aforementioned third party is not any mystical or metaphysical being (“although, given a certain understanding of the world, he can be expressed as such) – he is a constitutive aspect of the whole utterance, who, under deeper analysis, can be revealed in it. In our dialogical relations something absolutely new appears here: the supraperson, the supra-I, that is, the witness and the judge of the whole human being, of the whole I, and consequently someone who is no longer the person, no longer the I, but the other’

“The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes “one’s own” only when the speaker populates it with his own intention, his own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language. . . but rather it exists in other people’s mouths, in other people’s contexts, serving other people’s intentions: it is from there that one must take the word, and make it one’s own”

“In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding — in time, in space, in culture. . . . Our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space and because they are others”

“A context is potentially unfinalized; a code must be finalized. A code is only a technical means of transmitting information; it does not have cognitive, creative significance. Code is deliberately killed context”

My conclusion: The question cannot be answered because “love” and “self” are codes and to answer the question we have to explain a unique highly complex emotional context that is changing all the time.

We cannot code this context in a few words.

We need an infinite amount of words most of them never invented to explain a little detail of what “I am”.

I end with a statement of Goethe (another favorite of mine and Bahktin): “The highest thing would be to comprehend that everything factual is already theory. The blue of the heavens reveals to us the fundamental law of chromatics. One should only not see anything further behind the phenomena: they themselves are the theory”

I am what I am and it is what it is.