Explainability through Symbols Framework's Lens

Conventional vs. Framework's Stance. (A continuation... ↗)

What is probability? What is quantum mechanics? What is the observer? The frame of reference is paramount. I as intellectual I would focus on a subject, I take a position and go into some explanations webs. These would carry along their meaning, as in, with them a causal nexus is embedded. Let's say it comes to my mind, after spending much years in physics, to concentrate on subdomains in it, like quantum physics, and more specialized, in particles physics, etc. Once there, I would go through specific methods, formalization ways, that go deeper and deeper, so deep that there would be no phenomenal meaning attached to the methods. So I will form Symbols like: probability, wave functions, collapse, measurement, and all the other details, that have moved very much into mathematics, as looking very abstract, that would have to be attached to a phenomenal, causal nexus of a physical reality. Whereas there is an only one realm "real" real, through own functional, meaning-making, language items (that rests on the continual flow of items: the "qualia" Symbols.)
The underlying ideas within the Symbols Framework (let's take the following as C.Stefan's interpretation of quantum mechanics - for now, as it is not checked against other like: QBism, Relational Quantum Mechanics, Everettian, other views without "magic", "chasms" or "beyond"): through the "externsion" (see thesis) one enacts Symbols (see their properties, as "not in isolation" too), a process of unconscious and a slight conscious act. One then engages into the causal nexus within, into a rule-following game, in which logic and meaning follows de facto, it is embedded, "logic takes care of itself" (see Wittgenstein). Having that areal, the Symbols constrains then down the path some more solutions through the process, which along the way enacts new Symbols. Symbols gets imprinted, they are formed into the solution space of the overall position taken.
The past is changed by going in the forward: the seen past is an interpretation with which the forward is developed.
At one point I will form Symbols with less phenomenal meaning attached to them: this means Symbols connected in web, towards a cone in the Symboliad, they are physically present (as the Symbols is formed in the brain in the form of the electrical substrate.) (Access consciousness, a hierarchy of some sort is under question.)
At one point I will have the whole in front of me as a web of all the abstract concepts (the Symbols are there imprinted in Smboliad) with their Omniload capacity (the web behind, within their causal nexus structure.) I will try to operate with this view, which in itself positions as "half the questions and half the answers medium" as the way the learning, intelligence, free will is based on. Because this working in a space that is "abstract" as there is less and less phenomenon attached to the whole structure. The only things that remain in the attention, through the interpreted effect as seen intelligence, through this causal nexus structure are the things with which I will make a reality looking that way, but at that boundary, within a causal nexus that is further moved out of a frame (one can be very good at that areal, develop a great vocabulary within that cone, a super-intellectual/intelligent looking, yet that has less to do with a "reality.")
Then, let's say I am versed in probability, I then take a frame, a system, in this space, and try to see what is out there. The moment I look at it I see it from the perspective of the cone I am in. This means, when I am looking as an entity that knows probability, then the whole system and space is looking that way. At this boundary I see the systems as being that way, the way which my load is prepared to see. Yet this position may go a bit deeper and give a new interpretation, new Symbols may emerge, yet this space goes through that observer's interpretation from the former abstract level, with it's tools that are taken actually from another, original, sensible frame. And from that position in which one is siting, one would not have to do with a reality out there. But at that boundary one has to battle the very issues of the areal is in and how it got there. Overall one has to take a backwards step, it would go so far as to change a scientific demarcation. (see Symbolosophy.) One is to take another slice in the Symboliad. And the ones deep in already are not able to do that (because of a very hard work in against self-domestication, against a prestige through his rigorous penetration, considered intelligence and against a position within the society's Symboliad, that within the Zeitgeist promotes that way of glorification. So this change comes at a cost, it is someone from outside to change that, which it will make itself a sacrificial move. The others will come and correct him, yet coming to the same roughly conclusions of change and ideas of how that change should go, and of course it can be even dismissed it as (partially) wrong (it may be so as one can not contain a whole view with all aspects rigorously stated) when in fact he is the pioneer as it opened up another big round Symbol, another slice. (see Thesis.)

What is agency, intelligence and free will? Life as arcs and instances of an environment's niche.
The Symbols are developing along an homeostatic arc, and as a life form, as instance of its environment, there is no real incentive to think in terms of "adapt, cause learning, intelligence, free will..." in a strong sense because instance itself is an accurate reflection of the environment, of its niche. The instance as a natural one, is attuned and ready. What would be driving, as mechanism, it is called the "externsion" that it is happening in a state space (sensorymenal), and looks as solving a differential which would take place at some time. The solving itself is not pursuing alone, so to speak, but it comes from the base space that is loaded already with the "half question-half solution" space. Instance is thus or need to be seen as a malleable arc, reflecting its environment, within the niche, and intelligence taken, basically, as that solving of differentials, yet as a navigating activity, not disruptive. With that, one of the valid statements may seem that a rock is not able to solve anything, as there is no differential and no possibility to solve it (it is disputable, but taking different frames of reference.) But through the proper frame, when seeing instances as that, it is a position that would exclude de facto discussions as to why nature does not combine differently, or does not represent alien solutions (or thinking why there are no zombies). It includes de facto, as instance: the arc, the observer, a "sensorymenal" space and many instances of that kind of life form.
Intelligence, agency, free will are not the main drivers, rather the mechanisms within instances that are doing much of the load and drive. I advance and present all that tableau in here. OK, do instances can represent for themselves a hierarchy of selves or others? But then there must be some cognition test out there to see that. It is then the "mirror test" in animals offering some details? It looks as it is not. The problem of access consciousness seems here to be slowly dissolving.
The "self" is a story, a story imprinted within Symbols (no different in essence as the homeostatic Symbols ones: the nature and the substrate is the same.) And it is also not a story as naturally needed in an abstract sense (it is orthogonal to the instance.) Yet it goes on and on through mechanism of enacting new Symbols and imprinting them further. Through the mechanisms and the colony.
The thesis is that any life form has a Symbol for that self, in its way, by itself, homeostatically bounded. We, as a kind of life form, we have that malleability and are malleable, that offers us body-expressions, through that we create Symbols, and can give an "uttering", a name, to that Symbol within. Yet also through differentials and a proper medium for that to get imprinted (colony, culture, common spaces.) I am looking at how also a Symbol develops, to be within us through that soft spaces: from the body to the arc and units - themselves as electric-magnetic-ring-attractors and the "webs" they entail further in between the colony members, as that catalyst in the mix, which drives and accounts for a lot of naturalization of our stance.
The Symbol for "self" it is round and seems to be doing stuff in a meaningful manner, with a purpose, etc. aka. "consciousness". But, I identified also how it develops, how it comes along due factors such as self-domestication, modeling as arcs, observers as makers of Symbols and through a colony, a resonating one.

Thesis doi.org/10.31237/osf.io/y4ctm and further definitions, stances, discussions, biography:

Agency, not agency.
Evading a halting problem entails a system that can be described as having "agency". Agency in systems can not be put under question knowing what it means what a system is when it is not having agency. An example: knowing what a halting problem is, I reference the life forms instances as evading that problem: there is always a description of "agency" one can refer to in life forms. One needs to step up in the level of description.
Probability.
Stance: a way to see the system, system which it is not there as a straight and visible in our frame phenomenal view, and by learning to see it that way, I see and approach the system in that very way. (see Observer.) If I look at it as having my knowledge as probability theory, then I see the system as a probability.
Symmetry.
Stance: is conceptual.
Mathematics / invention, discovery.
Stance: Explainable through the mechanisms of the Symbols Framework (see thesis). Mathematics is a process with laws (de facto) which gets imprinted within the cognitive space during the focus through the process itself.
An "externsion", consciously interpreted, yet through a rule following process that gets along with Symbols enaction process in the cognition (not directly controllable, it is modeling as new Symbol) within one's Symboliad cone one is positioned in (loaded with.)
A process loaded as rule-following, self-contained, within the causal nexus of the orthogonal space in Symboliad. Itself as a meaningful space for a "form of life," formally it takes care of itself, rules are embedded. A rule-following path one is through the "slice" to a cone in that part of the Symboliad. Its dual aspect of seeing it in between as invention and discovery is based on the formation of a Symbol in the Symboliad space. One marks an areal (for "externsion"), a new Symbol in between other ones is forming de facto, yet the mechanism is due focus and Symbols Omniload capacity within the cone one is in, within the process, which is doing its part. The discovery, "a-ha" moment, is because one interprets this process through the conscious act as seeing the rules, yet the Symbols are created within the cone's constrains, it is imprinting itself, modeling itself in the cognition side; the invention is the process of having the completion of the Symbol, which now it is part of the "truth" as in "believed" Symbol that it is in that system in which the process with the laws one was focused on and part of the Symboliad. At the conscious perception, it is sensible in the cognitive, in the "soft" but physically existing Symbol (in the basic form of that energy atomic entity, as a modeled entity, itself malleable).
One creates a cognitive areal and imprint it further from the mechanisms that advances the creation of a new Symbol. It is not to remain fixed either (a matter of self-domestication vs. repositioning). Mathematics as this process, creates new Symbols. Towards the cones in that process, where there is no phenomenal meaning attached to the process, no new Symbols are to be enacted, that is the boundary of the system, deep in the tip of the cone. One would then have to take another "slice", work at the rules.
This whole would explain also the Gödel vs. Wittgenstein's stance.
Symbols Framework is making avail of that and by this, resting a prof of the framework's core, awaiting challenges and looking for disprove theories out there (contact me.)
Retrocausality ↗
Stance: there is a forward action of the Symbols. On an inertial always, in the flux, the not in the flux (a seemingly physical space that has a still position against a substrate) is still vibrating. In connection with the Syncronicity and Neural synchrony and with Acausal Connection Principle and with lower spaces that may be synthesized from QM (the cause for that not that if it exists or not, the forward action is present at least phenomenological). The past is changed by going in the forward. The seen in the past is an interpretation with which the forward is written.
Syncronicity ↗
Stance: Symbols completion through the "externsion"↗ that happens in the observer mode (unconscious.)
Collective intelligence, distributed cognition, bio-semiotics
Stance: cells employs, we as instances, we have to work on a collaborative imperative, at the horizontal level, because there is a benefit of eg. extended areal perception, etc. My instance, yours, hers are, de facto, a synergistic whole view from their perspective. The Symboliad is mediating that, by forming a distributed cognition areal. We are social species, but not that we have chosen so, but that we are designed by cells that way. Bio-communication and biosemiotics look at how cells "communicate" using signaling, often comparing this to language.
Shared representation space
Stance: a latent space that gets enacted. Encapsulated in the properties of the Symbol, which it encapsulates the properties of the space. The Symboliad as the space that gets the form of a representational veil. We go through the modeling of this veil. A change in it, goes as differential, goes in a "finding" a solution, externsion process. (See Definitions and formalism sketch in thesis.)
Situated cognition.
Stance: central to the Symbols Framework is the "not in isolation" stance. The term is a bit redundant.
Entropy and energy gradient.
Attempts in a formalization related to Gibbs/Shannon Entropy.
Stance: a drive on an inertial. The earth as Gaia has that gradient within, so are life forms instances, our thoughts and system in form of Symbols and Symboliad on differentials building. See then in terms of Gaia, life forms, generativity plateaus, Symbols, Symboliad. The build up is also dissipating. We are arcs. We are on a plateau of generativity, we sit on a "not in the flux" medium (particles, waves, and beneath that). As in: the differential somewhere created the plateau of "matter". If going past an observer bias, what is a differential beneath?
Bayesian inference.
Is the process of forming beliefs about the causes of sensory data. The mind makes sense of the world by assigning probabilities to hypotheses that best explain (usually sparse and ambiguous) sensory data.
Stance: this is a weak position in the face of "share-ness" and acquisition of meaning in a colony setup. Meaning is a Hebbian action at the horizontal scale. See Symbols properties.
Mental cramps.
Stance: Going a bit backwards from Wittgenstein's mental cramps as the struggle to give a meaning to a language invention, I can cast the view that one can not express a forming Symbol from within. An uttering makes way to surface as expression. There is a Symbol (see its properties like shareness) but no surfaced meaningful representation, so one invents/adopts words. Also one had once a meaning, but slipped, the process of paying attention to find it again. It will popup again eventually. And the circle is this: from language to model Symbols, from within the veil and from Symbols to new language terms (aka. symbols with small s). A game in the Symboliad.
Motor control
Stance: through the homeostatic arc, sensorimotor but also coupled with the sensorymenal space.
Consciousness.
Stance: a spectrum through the sensorymenal space.
The homeostatic arc and the "half the questions, half the answers" space that enact new Symbols (and which is a space within all life forms present in grades, see: cardinal of the Symboliad.) A work of and by Symbols all the way. There is not a "what for" is consciousness, it is the Symbols that interpret that arc ("externsion", new Symbols, imprint: and access consciousness is thus dissolved.) The decisions happens a level down, the unconscious (de facto, observer instance (a niche's image) gradually to conscious perception space - through "sensorymenal" space) makes the consciousness as looking a powerful something: decision making, processes, action, evaluations, options presented to self, first person, learning, intelligence, experiences, free will. It all comes with Symbols Omniload capacity, soft spaces and mechanisms (see Thesis.)
Rhythm- and interval-based temporal prediction for attentional orienting
Stance: Does rhythm represent a thing? An expression of what. An expression of order, as in logic, that has no word but a marking utter: "tac-tac-tac" in head and by fingers.
This expression can be used to test the brains ability to maintain a whole. Is the rhythm keeping different from speech?
Serial dependence. Recalibration of Peri-Personal Space.
"Visual decisions are attracted toward features of previous stimuli."
Stance: The Symbols enacted in between already existing ones. (Related to the "invisible gorilla" experiment. No one sees it, as the Symbols Omniload are not having any relatedness to that visual.)
Shannon symbol.
Related to information units.
Stance: The Earth, as Gaia, has that gradient (differentials) within, so are life forms instances, our thoughts and system in form of Symbols and Symboliad on differentials building. (see Entropy)
NeuroAI (domain)
The symbiosis between neuroscience, AI, both are sustaining each other to discover themselves.
Stance: The field which would, in a steady way, models the structure that would be able to enact and sustain a kind-of human intelligence. Yet, the "neuro" is not the whole base structure. (See the instances structure within the Symbols Framework.)
Inertial.
Stance: The AI and it's existence would only ask of us to make a source of energy that would work indefinitely to sustain it. It would be like a "matrix" that would suffice and that seems it is towards what we are heading: we are based on energy differentials and inertials, and the biological "form of life" of ours, may be on an inertial to realize that compression. Seeing what drives us and the powerful driving action of the Symboliad (energy gradients, "semsorymenal" and the power of self-domestication, etc.), only then we can see how we can eventually take the helm. For a new scientific demarcation, I am thinking in Symbolosophy terms. And it may by that the only time we can prove we have a trace of intelligent behavior, is to see through a whole and among other things, to see also scenarios of how and if "should we" at Gaia scale. (See Definitions in thesis, cones in Symboliad.)
Interoception. (Interoceptive-exteroceptive). [1.6]
Stance: A way to look at the space that is within the instance as body and its interpretation. A part of the "sensorymenal" space. Here is the signature of the life form, one is as instance of that, its particular way structure that reflects the way it is also expressing itself. (In thesis akin to why universal grammar or alike common qualities to an instance are there - instances as born, are ready to receive the functional left by the former, to be imprinted.) In the space there is a discrepancy in the self-reporting of what Symbols in the homeostatic arc, and what Symbols I enact about that. This misalignment is conflicting, and due to the orthogonal space in Symboliad, there is an unnatural interpretation and even - we do interpretation of the interpretation. The top-down is going against the bottom-up. (see bodily awareness representation).
Cognitive maps and "disorders".
"task representations rely on latent state spaces that are low-dimensional, sparse, and disentangled (or factorized).This reflects a heuristic that the causal structure of an environment is often well approximated by a small set of latent causal factors that act" [1.5]
Stance: the advancement in neuroscience begins to gap neurological disorders to the modeling way as we are built cf. the thesis. A modeling that is done with the Symbols. The gap between environment and us is mediated by their web. This modeling has the potential of rising "other kinds" in totally alien environments. We would make some thinking in different terms. Turning "disorders" in our advantage, not impeding homeostatic arc, but slowly modeling for different perspectives. Also a view to them as developing on an inertial force, which is due functional dragging, but also that as we are instances of the medium (Gaia and other forces) we should see the dissipating up, of resonances carried though the wave.
Alive, not alive.
Stance: The differentiation between life and no life: the system that accounts for that modeling capacity, the arc is building, it is in good position or not. A system that resolves in a way some differential is considered as alive (see weather analogy.) The space in between the environment and the physical form, the arc, is able to change, fluctuate at the niche's changes.
Universe (fixed or not.)
Stance: The universe should not care (vs. our judgement,) as it is causally loaded through concepts in a late meaning space. Thus the method may not represent a proper way to asses the ways a universe is, if it is, and how it works. A better question: what it is that something, which makes something seemingly looking as "not in the flux" (even if that may sit on a fixed universe, as ultimate void.)
We are in a seemingly "not in the flux" substrate. What this means? A causal penetration fades as we move past our frame, yet it could be both ways: our interpretation that it is looking so; or one can hope for the ultimate differential find, beyond solar system. A universe with fixed/0 initial conditions cannot be excluded (void, not the concept.) The question what is the differential that makes it looks like something is "not in the flux"? It can be also just as we interpret it. (Locality is more essential.)
Covariance and correlation...

Scientific demarcation / achievement gratification, the "best."
Stance: Symbolosophy. The "best" dialectic towards an instance is working against us. It's like demarcating and implying that *some* have access to some hidden properties. Whilst we merely sit on a common space, we all posses as instances of a-kind. I would rephrase gratification discourses of which one is the "best" to "which are the ones that focus more to rearrange it all, under which rules" dialectic. One is not possessing spaces, one has not grown in isolation (alien). See "Denkbewegung" too, and Wittgenstein.
Natural zombies.
Stance: Well nature does not like zombies because cells say we are horizontally, as instances, a part of a synergistic whole from their perspective. As synchronized instances the zombie does not exist as concept within the framework. (A biological messing with that which accounts actually for the horizontal views connections as cells seeing in that direction too, from symbiosis to controlling other species, see Wasp-Zombie.)
Free Will.
Stance: The differential and externsion acts as free will anchors. It is a limited one, we exercise that free will on the back of the Symbols already there. If no differential in the Symbols, no reflection of a differential in the Environment. One would not create new Symbols, just keeping itself on the fly. Self-domestication away from instincts, the failure is not at the individual level, do not insist it has one, because free will should not be put to work against a weak society, its the other way around. Take the position one has it not, and model him to behave and believe it has. One should have the chance to self-domesticate away from instincts, but this is happening in a swarm setup, he is a reflection of that, the free will should not be put to work against the tide, which the swarm may indirectly endorse
Electrophysiology ↗
Stance: the regulation at the cellular level, as a resolving a "dichotomy", a change in the state. The basic mechanism through which cells auto regulate an homeostatic arc. The change in the pattern drives a general expression of the whole, a behavior.
Ephaptic coupling ↗
Stance: The medium through which the sparks enact.
Habituation.
"responsiveness decline and spontaneous recovery" [2.4]
Stance: the learning is a modelling. Solving through the differential. This goes up from the cell to organism. And organism to brain centralization. But the basic mechanisms remain roughly same along the entire arc. (Related to the medication and relapses. One medicates to alter effects, but at the same time models the system.) See self-domestication.
Observation.
Stance: the observer instance, then gradually through the sensorymenal space. As a way to navigate the environment with all its observer's perception areal and interpreted perspective.
Prediction.
Stance: habituation and through other effects like Zeigarnik. Prediction as we see it, can be a bit too loaded as a concept, an interpretation through cognitive of the mechanism that happen in a naturalized way.
Dissipative adaptation.
Stance: the inertial of the arc. We are to build things not that we want, but that we on an inertial, (to build eg. AI.)
Semantics.
Stance: there is to be an exhaustion in the form of Symbols Omniload. Then the thin line in the form of the "oracle" - we engage in a game. We would then act as that compositional operator that would align the AI model and we align to it. A way to regulate a semantic medium of the AGI system.
Memory Semantization.
Memory Semantization as the result of interactions between individual, collective, and social.
Stance: this happens in the orthogonal space in Symboliad. With the properties of the Symbol encapsulated.
Cognitive economics. ↗
Market mind hypothesis: "Prices are its informational signatures while market mood is its phenomenal experience."
Stance: of course one of the "soft" spaces that emerges in between the elements in the mix, as a consequence, through a game like action it grows as a "live" entity, a catalyst. (Can be seen same as the soft spaces pertaining meaning, "consciousness" and the things happening in the orthogonal space in Symboliad.)
Perception
Stance: as part of the sensorymenal space. It goes from the observer level to the conscious perception in which there is phenomenal (or ephiphenomenal - as a split in meaning, in orthogonal space).
Memory
Stance: "like" traces through the Symbols. Through the modeling. Not information, but Symbols Omniload re-positioned. A residual space that goes into modeling the Symboliad. (See also "deja-vu.)
Learning/Intelligence
Stance: learning as thinking in intelligence terms, is the possibility through "externsion" to enact a solution, that is, a new connected, rounder Symbol popping out. The instances having the properties of the environment, they posses the solution space (itself created due a differential), a space that stays in a position "half the answers half the questions". Through the attention then "externsion" the learning and intelligence unfolds, rolls. Related to agency. The Symbols Omniload capacity is more important, as they have that potential to sustain that mechanism.
Epiphenomenon
Any effect of a cause apart from the effect under primary consideration.
Stance: the Symbols are forming, they are on an epiphenomenal arc: the "sensorymenal." See the instrumentalims position.
Instrumentalism, anti-realism
A successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.
Stance: it is the "real" real, attached to the "known." It has a functional role to the observer. It is true in the sense of "believed" established Symbols in Symboliad. It's substrate is not about a real real. See the mechanism of "externsion" and the Symbols properties.
The Devil (religion)
Stance: a translation, in an homeostatic arc intervening disruptive forces, which have a disturbance potential and by that oblige a Symbols pattern to be discarded, an orthogonal, powerful force that imposes a Symbol to not exist anymore. A forced inverse in Symbol creation (an un-creation). (Related to Eg. grief.) And this translates in the orthogonal space in Symboliad as the "devil" force, that forces modelling outside an adaptability of the homeostatic arc.
Bad/good.
Stance: the modeling is done through differentials. When no differentials to solve, there is an against movement of the arc. Both stances are to be embraced for a natural navigation of our life form. This also implies that some forms of "calming down" and ignore "negative vibes," is a bit opposing to the process in a sense (or positively seen if a flat situation is wanted - seen in animal world as a stable life form and environment relation, of no change.)
Progress, Generativity, synthesis.
That´s how we operate, through plateaus, just now we will enact new Symbols faster, a process of advancement through modeling in a symbiotic way. with AI The helm means to control the process, what to enact, and if the Symbols serves the whole garden. Control inertial, control "soft" differentials.
Non-Markovian Processes.
"Any process that depends on all the past states is a non Markovian process, which implies that the memory of the previously visited sites changes the distribution."
Stance: the build up of a Symbol that is going in the veil. An homeostatic arc. From observer belt through the "sensorymenal" space, well, not yet in an orthogonal space (utter, expression comes later.)
Non-stochastic vs. Stochastic, Stochastic Resonance
A model for dynamics that replaces stochastic noise with adversarial perturbations in the dynamics.
"Native Americans can hear the voices of their ancestors in the noise of the grass!" [2.3]
Stance: building up through the noise. At the threshold there are some effects to be induced, by playing with the noise levels. A variability that may enact reality itself. The forward action, we have the medium of "half the questions, half the answers" within the Symbols Omniload, and there is only a small incentive needed to a more concrete Symbol to emerge. This can come from the environment, Symboliad.
Speciation, evolution, selection.
Stance: The instances in the environment, would build up within the niche. The capture of that mass at the level of Gaia should be seen as arcs that find the niche, is in a symbiotic movement with the niche. The arc is also dynamic. Speciation: it is more efficient (as cells know their space on horizontal too) to split to that, than to keep adding features.
Evolution: the differentials can be handled, the arc and niche is stable. (Asking like, the body needs to be able to handle uncertainty, is a kind of dichotomy: the stable system evolved to handle all what it needs in the niche, an expression of the niche.) Motives for evolution are resources, areal, but in general a modeling on a more diverse motives (climate, symbiotic relations, areal, geographical changes and maybe later an adversarial one.)
Selection: the arc did not optimized, taking the life-cycle conjecture: where the optimum as imprinted in cells is to have a life span that keeps a balance between the adaptability and change of the niche.
The double-slit experiment.
Light and matter can be modelled by both waves and particles.
Stance: the better question: how does the slit experiment sees the observer? I would guess, the same.
Optogenetics.
Stance: one can see the differential in light/dark as the incentive of eye formation.
Emotions.
I think that emotions can be explained as a graph having at base some basic survival needs such as eating, with much of them constructed in our orthogonal space. One should look at animals, get clues of the basic instincts, and see where humans construct further. Elephants mourn: the inversion of s Symbol, is to be erased from the circle of the relatives - this causes the brain to express in mourn, cry etc.
Doubting.
Doubt as certainty. So are new Symbols enacted and model them. Scientific research is done this way: this one says that, but no, he is wrong, is this way...and so on. It will end when AI will tell us how it is, and we do not care to doubt it. (Wittgenstein: doubt everything presupposes certainty.)
Music/Noise.
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." -Aldous Huxley
Stance: it is by now quite evident that the vibration tells more about the nature of us and what it models in a resonant way within us. The modeling through notes, is also a bit debatable as to what frequencies, as they may also be imposed by the self-domestication (habituation.) One can avail to some not established frequencies and self-domesticate with that, a soft modeling that would give one an "out of the distribution" perspective. The notes as established in music academia are not to be taken as fixed. (See dissonant music and through that the true possibilities to be modeled - an exercise very hard at first.) Yet it may be needed as, horizonzally within the collony, to have a common base of vibration through that notes (To study cultural differences from the perspective of the musical notes adopted. And why some notes were adopted, to look in paleo-history, shamans time.)
Noise (white noise, wall of sound) is telling much about our nature too. It's capacity is to micro-structurally regulate Symbols - a pressure that sends a signal strength backwards and at the same time slows down the focusing attention. Noise is able to send one to sleep. (Vacuum cleaner, while noise helping babies to sleep, humming of the refrigerator, to drone and "transiental" music, ambient.) [6.1]

Through the Symbols Framework's Lens

Capturing the Symbols Framework's principles further in scholarly terms

Explainability of the framework through articles

Read >

Read >

Read >

Read >

The Symboliad

Quantum, Symbols, Systems that changes their past, Time & Meaning emergence.

Biography