The word reflexive means to direct back on itself. Don't confuse this with reflection, which means careful consideration or self reflection, which means careful consideration of oneself.
Reflexive Theory was originally created by a Russian mathematician Vladimir Lefebvre who is now part of a US think tank dealing with terrorism. Reflexive Theory was born during the cold war in Russia as a response to game theory which was widely adapted by the West.
What brought this theory to my attention is an article by Jonathan David Farley, San Francisco Chronicle: The torturer's dilemma: the math on fire with fire which was published on the Econophysics blog. I started trying to get a bit more information on the Reflexive Theory - Wikipedia had nothing, Google came up short, in fact, the only reference I could find is a link from a Russian site to a very old publication - go to page 86 for the relevant paper. And even there, the theory is never defined but is just applied in a simplified mathematical model of border protection from terrorism. I am wondering whether the fact that there is almost no mention on the web of reflexive theory has anything to do with the founder of the theory now being employed by the United States Government. Of course this thought pattern is better pursued on a big brother paranoia blog.
Reflexive Theory tries to explain mathematically why individuals take certain actions and what the consequence of those actions are. The theory takes into consideration how individuals perceive themselves whether good or evil, and whether those perceptions are valid or not.
The interesting thing about reflexivity is that its derived from psychology. The term actually implies that "reality and identity are reflexive". One implies the other. What we perceive is how we view ourselves and what we believe is true. This is a very powerful statement. This means that our reality is based on what we know, which is derived from our perceptions, which are based on our reality. This is a bit tough to swallow, but stay with me a bit longer. The whole point is that our reality defines us and influences our actions. In order for us to get a better understanding of our actions, and the consequences, and make additional evolutionary leaps, we need to step outside of our reality and view our knowledge and actions from that medium. I wonder whether traveling across realities is simply an evolutionary step where we can let go of our reality and understand the possibility of another. Alright, this last sentence is something that belongs in a sci-fi book rather than a blog on technology.
O. K. This blog is about technology not philosophy nor psychology or even mathematical models of terrorism. I am still working on how to tie this with technology. It's do able, but a bit theoretic, so I'll leave it for future entries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Vadim, reflexive theory is an overly academic approach to something that is really pretty simple, and you summed it up for the most part here: "This means that our reality is based on what we know, which is derived from our perceptions, which are based on our reality".
And this isn't a new idea. This is 7000 year old yogic indoctrine really. You should look into Ontology, as it dives deeply into these things. Another way to put is this:
Actions and assessments based on our assumptions or beliefs reinforce those
assumptions or beliefs. This is a self-reinforcing cycle -- our concepts of
reality reinforce themselves.
Assumption -> concept -> action <- feedback and assessment = assumption
When you start to consider everything you "know" about your moment to moment reality, a lot of it boils down to simply how you hold the world; through conceptualization and belief. Consider that you don't really experience the earth as round. You have only read that or heard it or have seen pictures. You've never actually experienced that as round. If no one ever told you or you never saw it, would you really know? You only hold that the world is round through belief. That doesn't mean it isn't actually round, it means that you only know it to be round through belief, which is not the same thing as experienced reality.
Those perceptions that we know reality through are only cognized to us and then experienced as the beliefs and concepts that they are. You could simply say that we "live inside our heads". It's all a function of mind and not the actual authentic experience of absolute reality.
That has some pretty big implications, don't you think? My perceived reality is going to be different than yours. We might both be eating eggs at the same table, but we both hold the concept of eating, the concept of table, and the concept of eggs differently, even if only subtle. Our experience is not the same and therefore our "perceived reality" is different.
Both are just as valid and legitimate. Now you take someone with fanatical behavior and belief systems about 72 virgins and martyrdom and is it really that hard for us to hold that so called fanaticism as illegitimate and "wrong"? It's not "right" either, it's simply their reality.
When you say the trick is to step outside of our reality, a different way of putting it is to de-identify from our concepts and beliefs, since we've already illustrated how that can take over and become your moment to moment reality. This is where things like Zen and Yoga come from; complete detachment from how you hold the world. The dropping of the mind.
It isn't about going out of our reality into another reality, it's about going out of our reality and into actual reality. The one that is already here right now and we seem to not be entirely conscious of.
Post a Comment