Connection Between Being Bipolar And Newton's 3Rd Law Of Motion?

[pagetheoracle]

Could there be a connection between being manic-depressive and Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.  By this I mean could the mania lead directly to the depression as a consequence of this forward momentum through time and space:  No climbing mountains (towards the light) without falling down into mine shafts of dark - no consciousness without unconsciousness as a consequence.  No driving on a full tank without needing to stop and refuel. No egg timer effect of filling one half, without emptying the other (pouring attention into the world through action or withdrawing into the mind, through inaction)?

[LeRepteux]

Hi Page,

 

How about: "No change on an idea without us resisting to that change", which is a direct analogy to "No acceleration without resisting to acceleration", the very definition of mass? Could the properties of mind be compared to those of mass?

Edited November 4, 2014 by LeRepteux

[pagetheoracle]

Hi Page,

 

How about: "No change on an idea without us resisting to that change", which is a direct analogy to "No acceleration without resisting to acceleration", the very definition of mass? Could the properties of mind be compared to those of mass?

Could be.  Sounds about right.  Max Planck said that new ideas weren't eventually accepted, just that those resisting them died out.

 

On another related point, could standing be more tiring than a short walk*, through forward momentum overcoming the effects of gravity, trying to drag us down into the less strenuous position of lying flat (trying to keep our balance through continual minor adjustments):  Weightlessness being actually caused by forward momentum.  Also going uphill being more tiring than coming down as again we are trying to defy gravity.

 

*Coupled with this maybe motion generates energy, through the dynamo effect?  Perhaps then being tired is not only running out of fuel but resistance to acceleration as you posit?

[LeRepteux]

For a body, it is its resistance to take a particular direction or speed that generates them, in such a way that without its intrinsic resistance, this body wouldn't acquire any motion at all. If it is the same for our ideas, it should be their resistance to change that would generate their change, and Max Plank would be wrong on that one, but he is not alone to think that way since almost everybody does, nevertheless, I think it is only a subjective idea, one that accounts for the resistance from others and ignores our own one.

Edited November 7, 2014 by LeRepteux

[pagetheoracle]

For a body, it is its resistance to take a particular direction or speed that generates them, in such a way that without its intrinsic resistance, this body wouldn't acquire any motion at all. If it is the same for our ideas, it should be their resistance to change that would generate their change, and Max Plank would be wrong on that one, but he is not alone to think that way since almost everybody does, nevertheless, I think it is only a subjective idea, one that accounts for the resistance from others, and ignores our own one.

Perhaps or is it more biological as with anti-bodies fighting infection by new germs of ideas, attacking the old order (I see what you mean by pushing forward and resistance though, like wading through a swamp:  If you don't deliberately create motion, nothing moves).  The question then becomes what creates motion (an explosion of energy?) and what resists it (inertia / apathy/ materialism or 'I'm alright Jack').

Edited November 7, 2014 by pagetheoracle

[LeRepteux]

How can anything change while simultaneously resisting to that change, a big question that I try to answer here . In this explanation, constant motion is due to the time it takes for their information to travel between bodies, and resistance is due to that information getting unsynchronized when a body is forced to change with regard to another one. Replace constant motion with remembering the past, and synchronism between bodies with synchronism between neurons, and you get this explanation of mass applied to our ideas: our resistance to change our ideas could come from our cortex neurons trying to stay synchronized while new information from our sensitive ones is coming in.

Edited November 8, 2014 by LeRepteux

[CraigD]

Could there be a connection between being manic-depressive and Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.

Physical laws provide lots of useful ideas that can be used as analogies for psychological condition, so I’d describe such a connection as analogous, or metaphorical. An analogy I’ve heard more often applied to bipolar disorder (called manic-depressive disorder from the 1950s through the 1980s) is of a pendulum, swinging from one side (manic) to the other (depressive) over time in a regular, predictable way. Applying Newton’s third law of motion leads me to think that the effect of someone having a manic episode is to make a person they interact with have a depressive one, or vice-versa, I’ve never heard of happening.

 

As with any use of analogy, we should be cautious not to have too much confidence in predictions drawn from them – for example, drawn from the pendulum analogy to concluding that if a person with bipolar disorder (called manic-depressive disorder from the 1950s through the 1980s) must have a depressive episode following a manic episode, or that manic and depressive episodes are clearly distinguishable. Neither of these conclusions is reliable: effective treatment can prevent episodes regardless of the severity and characteristics of previous episodes; and some bipolar episodes are “mixed affect”, combining manic and depressive features.

 

That said, metaphorical thought it a powerful human ability, closely related, I think, to our ability to use symbols, and arguably what explains why, alone among all the terrestrial species, we create the information, conceptual, and physical artifacts that constitute civilization, and exhibit technological progress. However, it’s a tool that, like any, can be used well of poorly. As rigorous science to guide in its use is sparse, using metaphor well is an art*. The work of non-classical philosophers such as George Lakoff (sometimes termed “third-generation cognitive science”) on quantifying and relating the use of metaphor in a scientific way is, I think, promising (not to mention engaging, and though-provoking, though difficult), but far from sufficiently mature to form a successful branch of applied science.

 

* I’m drawing on a subtle dichotomy which I’ve rarely found stated in literature, but more commonly spoken of: technique (how, practically, to do something) as art versus as applied science. For example, when a medical clinician says “medicine is an art, not a science”, they don’t mean medical techniques are fundamentally unscientific, they mean that the hypothesize-experiment-repeat process inherent to the scientific method is not practically, legally, or ethically applicable to the practice of medicine. In this sense, all technique that is not applied science is art.

[pagetheoracle]

 

How can anything change while simultaneously resisting to that change, a big question that I try to answer here . In this explanation, constant motion is due to the time it takes for their information to travel between bodies, and resistance is due to that information getting unsynchronized when a body is forced to change with regard to another one. Replace constant motion with remembering the past, and synchronism between bodies with synchronism between neurons, and you get this explanation of mass applied to our ideas: our resistance to change our ideas could come from our cortex neurons trying to stay synchronized while new information from our sensitive ones is coming in.

Interesting idea.  I would put imagining the future in place of constant motion, in the third sentence.  As we move through the universe, the universe moves through us, to quote one of my observations which is obviously on the same wavelength.

 

I would also say that age has something to do with the ability and willingness to take on new ideas:  To the young, the old is boring and predictable; to the old, the future is all strange and overwhelming gobbledy-gook.

[pagetheoracle]

Physical laws provide lots of useful ideas that can be used as analogies for psychological condition, so I’d describe such a connection as analogous, or metaphorical. An analogy I’ve heard more often applied to bipolar disorder (called manic-depressive disorder from the 1950s through the 1980s) is of a pendulum, swinging from one side (manic) to the other (depressive) over time in a regular, predictable way. Applying Newton’s third law of motion leads me to think that the effect of someone having a manic episode is to make a person they interact with have a depressive one, or vice-versa, I’ve never heard of happening.

 

As with any use of analogy, we should be cautious not to have too much confidence in predictions drawn from them – for example, drawn from the pendulum analogy to concluding that if a person with bipolar disorder (called manic-depressive disorder from the 1950s through the 1980s) must have a depressive episode following a manic episode, or that manic and depressive episodes are clearly distinguishable. Neither of these conclusions is reliable: effective treatment can prevent episodes regardless of the severity and characteristics of previous episodes; and some bipolar episodes are “mixed affect”, combining manic and depressive features.

 

That said, metaphorical thought it a powerful human ability, closely related, I think, to our ability to use symbols, and arguably what explains why, alone among all the terrestrial species, we create the information, conceptual, and physical artifacts that constitute civilization, and exhibit technological progress. However, it’s a tool that, like any, can be used well of poorly. As rigorous science to guide in its use is sparse, using metaphor well is an art*. The work of non-classical philosophers such as George Lakoff (sometimes termed “third-generation cognitive science”) on quantifying and relating the use of metaphor in a scientific way is, I think, promising (not to mention engaging, and though-provoking, though difficult), but far from sufficiently mature to form a successful branch of applied science.

 

* I’m drawing on a subtle dichotomy which I’ve rarely found stated in literature, but more commonly spoken of: technique (how, practically, to do something) as art versus as applied science. For example, when a medical clinician says “medicine is an art, not a science”, they don’t mean medical techniques are fundamentally unscientific, they mean that the hypothesize-experiment-repeat process inherent to the scientific method is not practically, legally, or ethically applicable to the practice of medicine. In this sense, all technique that is not applied science is art.

The reason symptoms are mixed is I believe Craig that within each episode there are mini-episodes of counter actions (mostly down but struggling back up briefly as a Water Boatman swims to towards the surface in little bursts as gravity wants to pull it downwards).

 

Depression pulling a partner down?  Resistance comes into this or fighting the symptoms that the bipolar person can't or has given up on (decided to drown in the depression or hasn't the strength to swim against the current).

 

Thanks for the link though - I'll follow it up

[LeRepteux]

Interesting idea.  I would put imagining the future in place of constant motion, in the third sentence.  As we move through the universe, the universe moves through us, to quote one of my observations which is obviously on the same wavelength.

Thanks for the like, it doesn't happen that often! :)

 

I have a very special proposition to make about imagination, but it does not match the one you made, in fact, it is almost the inverse. I also think that imagination is about the future, but about changing our actual ideas, thus similar to acceleration for bodies, and that these ideas are automatisms, thus similar to constant motion for bodies. While I was trying to find out how ideas could change when they are not supposed to, I had the idea of comparing their evolution to species' evolution, which need a random process to adapt to a change in their environment.

 

Actually, what I think is that our mind contains such a random process that can randomly change our ideas, and that these ideas are then selected by their environment. As for mutations, this process does not necessarily change the whole idea, it can change only small parts, but if these changes work, they are then accepted as facts and do not change unless imagination tries to change them again. Do you like again or do you hate the idea that part of your mind could work randomly?

 

I would also say that age has something to do with the ability and willingness to take on new ideas:  To the young, the old is boring and predictable; to the old, the future is all strange and overwhelming gobbledy-gook.

To me, the future is interesting, its about new unpredictable things happening to humans. Even at 68, I still want to be part of it. I wish the young would become more interested in research though, we would see more of them on the forum.

 

Edited November 9, 2014 by LeRepteux

[pagetheoracle]

 

Thanks for the like, it doesn't happen that often! :)

 

I have a very special proposition to make about imagination, but it does not match the one you made, in fact, it is almost the inverse. I also think that imagination is about the future, but about changing our actual ideas, thus similar to acceleration for bodies, and that these ideas are automatisms, thus similar to constant motion for bodies. While I was trying to find out how ideas could change when they are not supposed to, I had the idea of comparing their evolution to species' evolution, which need a random process to adapt to a change in their environment.

 

Actually, what I think is that our mind contains such a random process that can randomly change our ideas, and that these ideas are then selected by their environment. As for mutations, this process does not necessarily change the whole idea, it can change only small parts, but if these changes work, they are then accepted as facts and do not change unless imagination tries to change them again. Do you like again or do you hate the idea that part of your mind could work randomly?

 

To me, the future is interesting, its about new unpredictable things happening to humans. Even at 68, I still want to be part of it. I wish the young would become more interested in research though, we would see more of them on the forum.

 

 

My mind works randomly, stumbling over new ideas all the time but it still comes up with the same ideas again and again as my belief about language shows http://www.pinterest.com/paigetheoracle/boards/

[pagetheoracle]

Craig, I think that life is composed of waves within waves - that is large movements are composed of smaller movements that get kick started and unite, like the tide is composed of smaller waves coming in or going out.  It's also like the shock waves of the first atomic tests, which shows that the explosion isn't just a single blast out but a suck back in too.  Bodies are made of smaller cells, buildings of bricks, matter out of atoms and molecules ad infinitum, I suppose...

[LeRepteux]

Wow, very nice page Page!  :)

 

I think that there is nothing that I don't like in it. You're a lot more eclectic than I am, though. I think that we have the same viewpoint on life, but a different way of saying it, and maybe a different way of living it too.

 

You may be right about our ideas going in circles. In some way, species go in circles too if nothing changes around them, but they nevertheless end not being able to mate with one another after a while because their environment changes all the time. It takes time to change, and we may not live long enough to see our own ideas not being able to interfere with one another after a while, except maybe for some schizophrenic minds. Continuity is important to life: too many mutations would not be viable, but too little also.

 

I had a look on your method for learning English language, and I found your approach interesting. I guess we could do the same for French, which is my native language. You say you face a lot of resistance, and I do too. To be able to learn something, we have to know that it works, in such a way that if we are not sure, as for a whole new idea for instance, we cannot understand it, because to begin with, we cannot even try to learn it. This is continuity trying to do its job, resisting to any change, until by chance, randomness bypasses the resistance. Children do not resist to learn language, because they can see it works for others. Did you try your method on some of them?

Edited November 10, 2014 by LeRepteux

[LeRepteux]

Craig, I think that life is composed of waves within waves - that is large movements are composed of smaller movements that get kick started and unite, like the tide is composed of smaller waves coming in or going out.  It's also like the shock waves of the first atomic tests, which shows that the explosion isn't just a single blast out but a suck back in too.  Bodies are made of smaller cells, buildings of bricks, matter out of atoms and molecules ad infinitum, I suppose...

I see why you found the small steps interesting! As a matter of fact, each step has a sinusoidal wave pattern, is made out of smaller ones, and is part of larger ones, and since big ones depend on small ones, this imbrication has to be infinite for motion to exist at any scale.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LeRepteux

[pagetheoracle]

Wow, very nice page Page!  :)

 

I think that there is nothing that I don't like in it. You're a lot more eclectic than I am, though. I think that we have the same viewpoint on life, but a different way of saying it, and maybe a different way of living it too.

 

You may be right about our ideas going in circles. In some way, species go in circles too if nothing changes around them, but they nevertheless end not being able to mate with one another after a while because their environment changes all the time. It takes time to change, and we may not live long enough to see our own ideas not being able to interfere with one another after a while, except maybe for some schizophrenic minds. Continuity is important to life: too many mutations would not be viable, but too little also.

 

I had a look on your method for learning English language, and I found your approach interesting. I guess we could do the same for French, which is my native language. You say you face a lot of resistance, and I do too. To be able to learn something, we have to know that it works, in such a way that if we are not sure, as for a whole new idea for instance, we cannot understand it, because to begin with, we cannot even try to learn it. This is continuity trying to do its job, resisting to any change, until by chance, randomness bypasses the resistance. Children do not resist to learn language, because they can see it works for others. Did you try your method on some of them?

I did try to get involved in a literacy scheme in the area I live in but they were not amenable to my approach, unfortunately.

 

Liked your point about motion, above.

 

Another point is to do with speed and absorption of ideas as well as perception (What you were saying about being in synch, partly).  I believe that the faster you move, the less detail you're able to take in, plus 'movement with' something creates the impression it is real, where slowing down and separating from it disavows you of this.

[LeRepteux]

If the idea of the small steps is right about atoms' mass, then any analogy with our behaviors has good chances to be right too, because our brain only serves us to move with regard to our environment, or to observe motions from it. In other words, what we have in mind is only about motion. Even a metaphysical idea like heaven is about motion, because it is about time passing by and distance to travel to get there.

 

I tried to link individual characters to the small steps, and it seems to match quite good: for instance being introverted or extroverted has to do with the way people express themselves, which is similar to the way atoms emit their light, and being opened or closed has to do with the way people accept others, which is similar to the way atoms absorb light from others. Direct or indirect action for atoms is similar to sincere or liar for us, and massive or less massive for atoms is similar to stubborn or docile for us.

 

How long have you been trying to convince people to try your method? It takes time to change, but if you stop pushing, no change is possible. As I said, change happens when chance has time to do its job. For instance, a mutation may happen at the right time and at the right place to be selected, but if the individual that carries it has an accident and cannot reproduce himself, it might be lost anyway. For an idea to be understood, you have to push on it for a while, no matter the resistance you can get. If it doesn't work one way, you try another one, until you find the right one, or the right guy to help pushing. Doing so, you might find new ways of explaining it, or even improve it so that it is more easily understood. It might take years to convince people, but if you are convinced that your idea works for real, its worth pushing on it.

Edited November 12, 2014 by LeRepteux

[pagetheoracle]

If the idea of the small steps is right about atoms' mass, then any analogy with our behaviors has good chances to be right too, because our brain only serves us to move with regard to our environment, or to observe motions from it. In other words, what we have in mind is only about motion. Even a metaphysical idea like heaven is about motion, because it is about time passing by and distance to travel to get there.

 

I tried to link individual characters to the small steps, and it seems to match quite good: for instance being introverted or extroverted has to do with the way people express themselves, which is similar to the way atoms emit their light, and being opened or closed has to do with the way people accept others, which is similar to the way atoms absorb light from others. Direct or indirect action for atoms is similar to sincere or liar for us, and massive or less massive for atoms is similar to stubborn or docile for us.

 

How long have you been trying to convince people to try your method? It takes time to change, but if you stop pushing, no change is possible. As I said, change happens when chance has time to do its job. For instance, a mutation may happen at the right time and at the right place to be selected, but if the individual that carries it has an accident and cannot reproduce himself, it might be lost anyway. For an idea to be understood, you have to push on it for a while, no matter the resistance you can get. If it doesn't work one way, you try another one, until you find the right one, or the right guy to help pushing. Doing so, you might find new ways of explaining it, or even improve it so that it is more easily understood. It might take years to convince people, but if you are convinced that your idea works for real, its worth pushing on it.

I've been trying to reach and teach people by various routes for over twenty years.  If I see an opportunity, I jump at it as a possible because it might have the potential to lead somewhere (A lot of the times it doesn't and I've even had people, who have taught language or in one case was the editor of a journal on dyslexia, turn round and say but it is just a load of columned words!?!).  As I told my editor and had someone tell me, educational publishing is hard to break into and a slow but steady market of increasing returns as the ideas filter down and take hold (and over, hopefully).

 

As for what you say about children, I think that like Einstein they are infinitely curious and full of energy, so will explore anything and everything.  Adults however are like batteries running out of energy and enthusiasm, who protect what little life they have left as well as their hold on life / power as they fear losing it (My sad realization as I've started to join them and understand this fear of death on all levels that exists i.e. mental as well as physical - I equate spirit with energy by the way.

 

I see heaven and hell, introversion and extroversion as being like a black hole and a white (w)hole or sun - you either burn bright with enthusiasm or sink into cynicism and become depressed:  By the way I know I am both at various times