One hour recording of my recent progress, attempting to interpret Euler’s formula as a description of the moving moment of mind.

There’s not much explanation of the mathematical terms, eg e, i. Focus is on the interpretation of the established form of mathematics. For me, a foothold into measurement: the temporal dimension of the period of time for a thought, or a collection of thoughts.

The four phases I’ve covered in Time Walkers and elsewhere. The bit I’m honing in is the receptive projective phase, where our ability to perceive (evolved as we were animals) enables us to make sense of the physical (as well as other aspects) of the world. In terms of the moving moment of listening, it is the pre-conscious processing which occurs before conceptual or primary attention is ‘notified’. The phase before conceptual distinctions are made, complex network of associations are somehow referred to or evoked. Within this phase, is a human sharing where I locate the sense of ‘we’ which we need to cultivate. Locating this mathematically, within the psycho-social field, will be a big win for us.

The question which must always be returned to: is this a model of mind, or a reflection of it, the so called Reflexive Imposition. The point of XQ is not to create a model of the mind. The point is to reflect on the mathematical structures which we have produced, and within them witness patterns of mind.

The process I’ve been following for a few weeks appears to be breaking the Reflexive Imposition, and appears to lean towards modelling the mind. Just in the same way the mathematical forms were requisitioned for the study and control of electro-magnetic phenomena. Will this lead to equations of mind? I doubt it. They are too simplistic. But I am a man stumbling around in the dark. There is a possible path to connect this to Fourier Transforms, but I just don’t have the familiarity to explore this properly. It is a stretch as it is. Another connection has been Generative Adversarial Networks, from a completely different angle. I suspect mathematicians and computer scientists are honing in on simulations of mind purely through iterative engineering experiments, with very little internal, reflexive appreciation of how they individually work. Perhaps I am doing them a disservice. I would not be surprised to find that my crude explorations are rudimentary structures taught to first year undergraduates studying AI, at least the algorithms; I remain sceptical that an internal appreciation of mind is part of the course.

Will we see these kinds of equations and explorations being explored by PhD students in mathematics departments within a decade? I’d like to think so, but I know it is purely fantastical speculation.


I’ve reminded myself of logarithmic functions, fractions in the derivation of Shannon’s derivation of entropy or theory of communication, which also makes use of Bayes Theorem… way too much for me to assimilate.

And I am reminded of Theory of Perception, Powers and Maclennan was it, when considering hierarchies of feedback cycles.

The point of looking at e^pii is to utilise alternative interpretations of mathematical functions and builds, for simple things like circles, cycles, since these are obviously aspects of how we think, how we consciously operate. It should mean, that when we look at mathematical descriptions of AI programming, algorithms, we will be able to see why they actually work, rather than the rather objective, scientific explanation which is based on its output, that it works. We may also be able to attend to eg the maths of electromagnetic fields and draw out the mathematical forms which may provide insight into psycho-social fields.