What kind of evidence supports the Creative Pulse theory? Why does the institutionalization of the Interruption Phenomenon give it more credence? How did this example reveal the power of Interruption to disrupt concentration? Why do the constructs of a successful model define the nature of reality? Although our daily reality is geocentric, why do modern humans believe in a heliocentric reality? What kind of material explanation do scientific materialists have for the Interruption Phenomenon? What kind of technology did my Person employ to explore his questions? What was the insight that led to his discovery? What are the three affirmations that the CP theory satisfied? And why does this mean that the underlying constructs of the theory define reality? Article Summary
Theoretical models must be based in Empirical evidence, else they have no immediate tie to reality. The Empirical, in this case, was a somewhat identical phenomenon that I had personally experienced tens of thousands of times – the Session. These all had similar features, which occurred naturally (no intention on my part) – a warm up period, followed by inspiration and eventual fade out. This applied to Tai Chi, organ practice or my variety of creative projects. Further interruptions to any of these disciplines were and are incredibly aggravating. They seem to damage the inspiration. If the interruptions were of long enough duration they knocked my creative session off course. Had to restart up the hill to inspiration, as it were. My quest was to find a mathematical model for these ten of thousands of personal similar experiences.
To augment the highly suspect nature of the personal experience there are many institutionalized examples of this abhorrence for interruptions. For instance at professional theatre or musical events (especially those held in a small venue), the doors to the theatre are locked after the show begins. Due to the global and historical persistence of this custom, it increases the number of these Interruption experiences (the Empirical evidence) by at least an order of magnitude – raising the number of similar events into the hundreds of thousands.
This institutionalization also further confirms the disproportionate and detrimental impact of the Interruption Phenomenon upon concentration (attention). It reveals how the smallest interruption can be incredibly aggravating. This serves as added empirical evidence for the nature of Interruptions. Someone merely entering the theater and finding their seat after the performance had begun – no interaction or personal engagement whatsoever - a few minutes maximum – was so irritating to so many people that one group of citizens in one city somewhere decided to lock the door for late arrivals, presumably in order to avoid distraction. This solution felt so good to the theatergoers visiting from other cites that they instituted the same rules in their municipalities. Eventually this custom spread all over the globe- presumably because the distraction of someone finding his or her seat drained attention from the performance. (Could this be due to an interruption in the intensity of their sustained Attention?) If all the theatergoers in all the cities of the world have experienced this phenomenon, this means that there are millions of external examples (to augment the personal experiences) of the disproportionate power of interruption – cross culturally – internationally. This institutionalized example of the Interruption Phenomenon is fairly unassailable. To further cement the Empirical evidence let us remember the almost universal annoyance caused by noisy movie patrons, whose behavior draws our attention from the action on the screen.
This was the Experience that I was attempting to model with mathematics. Why? If the model is accurate enough, then its underlying constructs begin to define the nature of reality – a primary scientific assumption partaken in by nearly the entire population of the planet.
For example virtually nobody believes that the world is flat anymore or that the earth is the center of the universe – although almost all of our experience tells us this is so.
As exhibited by a conversation held about 400 years ago:
Son: “I learned at the University that Science – via Copernicus and Kepler – has proved that the earth circles around the sun.”
Dad: “Nonsense, son. Trust your senses. It’s obvious to anyone who can see that the sun circles the earth. This is what gives us day and night.”
“Not according to the latest scientific findings.”
“Scientific findings? Do you really believe that our enormous Earth is circling that tiny circle of light in the sky. Silliest thing I’ve ever heard. What about sunrise and sunset? No one ever says earth rise and earth set.”
“Scientists say that the earth revolves around its axis to create days.” “
“Preposterous! Whoever heard of such a ridiculous idea? Why and how could anything as huge as the Earth spin? And besides if the Earth is spinning what prevents us from flying off?”
“Newton says that gravity, the attraction between two objects, holds us down to the earth.”
“Gravity? Two inanimate objects with an attraction for each other? What will they think of next? Sounds like magic to me. But what do I know?”
Despite all daily evidence to the contrary this seemingly ridiculous scientific model has been so well established that it is now the perceived reality. The self-evident empirical evidence of the sun proceeding across the sky from our fixed vantage point is ignored due to the success of the scientific models in predicting reality.
In similar fashion if a mathematical or experimental model is developed that fits the Interruption Phenomenon then its constructs would also reveal the underlying nature of reality.
Of course the success of the Newtonian model in describing the material world has led many to believe that the primary underlying construct of the theory – matter – is reality. As such, scientific materialists believe that the interactions of matter describe all phenomena in the Universe[1]. They are convinced that some physical cause will eventually be discovered for the Interruption Phenomenon.
“Brain Rules suggests it has to do with the delay in switching from one neural network to another (although this only consumes a few milliseconds).”
“Perhaps it’s due to the Brain's secretion of some to-be-discovered hormone.”
“Or maybe something to do with the connective tissue and our magnetic field?”
“Or … I’ve got it. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.”
“No, silly. We don't go the speed of light. I think it has to do with the fundamental particles that make up the entire Universe the quarks, muons, and such. Their mysterious interactions probably determine the power of interruption.”
“Oh, if someone could only discover the Unified Field Theory of Everything, then Science could certainly explain this ubiquitous phenomenon.”
Had no 600 million dollar particle accelerator at my disposal – not even a laboratory for dissecting animal brains to discover the clues to the operation of our cells and neural networks that supposedly regulate all of our behavior. Didn’t have any of latest brain scanning technologies for exploring the mysterious secretions and electronic impulses of the Brain (whose transmissions are too slow to even enable a frog to catch flies.) Didn’t have any of these elaborate options to investigate the Phenomenon that perplexed me. Only had an old computer – a Mac G3 – with the Excel spreadsheet application (Thank god!). Also had a few mathematical constructs – developed pre-computer – specifically the Living Average and its first derivative, the Directional.
After years of casual contemplation had a simple insight. Check out the behavior of the Directional Momentum (had ignored it in the previous Scientific Obsession – so many years before). Employ a ‘1’ for the activity and ‘0’ for an interruption and see what happens. First the pure, non-interrupted session.
Et Voila! The unadorned Creative Pulse – complete with the rise and fall of Inspiration. Fit my internal model of the Session or Obsession, as it were. OK, now what happens when ‘0’s for interruptions are inserted into the model?
Perfect! The Creative Pulse satisfied my quest much better than expected. I now examine a few more scenarios – to see what comes up. What else does the model have to show me? Do a few more computer experiments. Come up with some surprising, counterintuitive results. Took me nearly a decade to even come close to understanding the implications of these perplexing findings. The first belated insight was that the evil ‘0’s when they created an Interruption in the Creative Pulse became good ‘0’s when they initiated a natural Break at the end of Pulse. Then came the catalyzing Zen trip and the discovery of a model for Quantized Behavior – again with disturbing and encouraging counter-intuitive results.
So the Creative Pulse – a computer generated model based upon the mathematics of Fractal Regeneration – 1) fulfilled the requirements of the Interruption Phenomenon. Then 2) over the next decade the initial results were extended into surprisingly congruent sectors of existence. And finally 3) the experiential component – the implications of the model are validated daily. As mentioned these three affirmations lead to the assumption that the constructs of the model define the nature of reality.
In the next articles we will first examine the radical implications of the initial discovery – the Creative Pulse herself. In the subsequent articles we will explore what the many underlying constructs have to say about the nature of reality.
[1] Whoa! What a responsibility! How silly – almost immature – the bravado of the concept. Have described a few phenomena precisely and somehow extrapolate this to include the Universal flux. A good example of the Dumb Kid Syndrome.