In the human brain it has become noticable that the sensors of the senses (eyes for sight, ears for sound) are delt with as seperate units. The degree of seperation seems to be related to the degree of use for each unit during the early development stages, where a degree of even distribution leads to an interdigitation of sensor information in the primary cortex of the sense system; a unit that experiences little or no sensation will have it's areas thinned-out when compared to the non-impaired sensor, or even taken over by the other system. In the following we assume a 'normal' development path.

Considering the presents of synesthesia in some humans, as well as the link of emotive responses to wavelength/frequency attributes of any sense system (e.g. tonal harmonics and visual harmonics (colour) - both ellicit emotion), we concider the forward evolution of properties of the senses into levels of abstract information processing combined with the base concept of all information being reducable to wholes and their aspects.

To start with, we can derive the possible sets of abstract bimodal sensors from basic Set Theory:

Primary Auditory    set A = {Left Ear}
                    set B = {Right Ear}

Primary Visual      set C = {Left Eye}
                    set D = {Right Eye}

Cartesian Products WITHIN sensory system.

set E = A x B = {ab}          (observed crossover/banding)
set F = C x D = {cd}          (observed crossover/banding)

Suggested Cartesian Products ACROSS sensory systems.

set G = E x F = {ac,ad,bc,bd} (observed crossover/banding)
                              (e.g. Goldman-Rakic, 1984)

set H = {l(eft),r(ight)} (associative systems duplicated in hemispheres)
              (as are primary sensory systems (implicit in this)
              (are the biases of the hemispheres)

set I = G x H = {lac,lad,lbc,lbd,rac,rad,rbc,rbd}

reducing this by using just v (vision) and a (audition) terms:

     Set I = {vvv,vva,vav,vaa,avv,ava,aav,aaa}

     The increasing levels of abstraction imply a hierarchy:

+----------------------------------------------+
| vvv | vva  | vav  vaa | avv  ava | aav  aaa  | fine sensing
|------------+----------+----------+-----------|      ^      
|      vv    |    va    |    av    |    aa     |      | (associative areas)
|------------+----------+----------+-----------|      |
|             v         |          a           |      | (prime areas)
|----------------------------------------------|      |
|                sensory systems               | gross sensing
+----------------------------------------------+

Fig 1 The hierarchy of sensory crossover manifest in banding.

As we progess from one level to the next we are performing the equivalent of creating harmonics. As such, we perform a sequence of development which is based on powers of 2. This is part of a concept called 'The Context Ratio' (CR). Analysis of this ratio suggests that an optimum state of 'av' relation occurs at a CR of 1.618 (phi - The Golden Ratio). The binary sequence, as derived as we move through the lavels of Fig 1 (1,2,4,8...), being an extremely high rate and the unity sequence (see below) being extremly low. The CR of 2.00 is determined by adding ALL previous numbers in the sequence to get the next and then dividing the last value into the new value, whereas the fibonacci sequence only adds the previous two numbers in the sequence (if any) to get the next and then divided the new sequence number by the previous one. As the fibonacci sequence get's bigger, so the ratio approaches 1.618:

     0 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 :  1 :  1 .... (Unity Sequence)

     0 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 3 : 5 :  8 : 13 .... (Fibonacci Sequence)
     0 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 4 : 7 : 13 : 24 .... (Tribonacci Sequence)
     .......
     .......
     .......
     0 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 4 : 8 : 16 : 32 .... (Binary Sequence)

There are unlimited sequences in between the fibonacci sequence and the binary sequence but they cannot exceed a ratio of 2.00 nor drop below 1.00 without introducing a degree of instability (beyond 2.00 enters the world of complexity and chaos.)

The suggestion is that the optimum context ratio, common in both animal, mineral, and plant life is derived across the planet at a morphological level. It manifests the point of best development where, for example, the audition side is balanced by the vision side but not contained since this would lead to practically no movement (the Unity sequence - associated with one fixed timeframe; foreground and background are 'one' or 'whole'). The binary sequence manifests the drawing out of foreground from background such that the ratio of foreground to background is ALWAYS 2.00. Graphically, these sequences have differing slopes that emphasize their 'speed' of development.

      16+                     *
      15+
      14+
      13+
      12+
      11+
      10+
       9+
       8+                *   .
       7+
       6+
       5+                .
       4+             *  
       3+             .
       2+          .  
       1+    o  o  o  o  o  o
        +-o------------------
'frames'  1  2  3  4  5  6  7

    o = unity sequence
    . = fibonnoci sequence
    * = binary sequence

What is noticable is that differences in sequence do not become clear until frame 4. Thus all sequences within the range appear as identical (and therefore 'one') at the beginning. Approaching frame 3 we start to get emergence.

As far as banding is concerned, no banding occurs at a CR of 1 whereas strong precise banding occurs at a CR of 2. Banding ratios therefore range from 1 to 2 with an optimum at 1.618. Since the banding is apparently global, I suggest that the CR reflects the level of hemispheric lateralization, just as it reflects lateralizations within sensory cortices down to neuron columns.

To extend this to, say, medicine, the profusion of various methodologies emphasises the continuing belief that we are treating the whole. The profusion demonstrates the number of 'wholes' considered! Fringe medicines often show a bias to either FORM (colour therapy) or PROCESS (radionics) but traditional medicine seems to ignore any possible benefits from analysis of these fringe methodologies (I dont blame them, since these methodologies are often based on a lot of mumbo jumbo based around an intuitive understanding of a bias. Perhaps the current model will help encourage a more accepting and scientific approach)

The banding system is a manifestation of genetic crossover. This crossover seems to be global (I stress this because the tools I am using for analysis are part of this crossover and therefore that is the strongest bias I see)

Gentically speaking, it is possible that the number of crossovers manifest is dependant on the number of genes available. However, during cell meiosis, the moment of crossover, most emphasis seems to be at the middle of the chromosome, thus splitting it in two. No crossover implies no split. What we see here is the Context Ratio at work, meitosis symbolized by a CR of 1, meiosis symbolized by a CR varying from 1.618 to 2.00

What this demonstrates is the push for genetic diversity; Darwinism at work at a fine level where mutation occurs at the cell division level all the time.

The crossover therefore manifests genotype, the exposure to the enviroment at an early age sets the context for phenotype. The whole being having fixed genetic biases that are then favoured or disfavoured by the environment. The level of this can be shown using radioactive tracers to bring out the banding (if any) and the implication that no two banded areas will be the same in every person.

This gives a simple genetic model of banding where a structural (gross context) gene has a bias to A or B (mother/father). As we move from gross to fine so we move through the hierarchy generating the different combinations shown in figure 1.

Implied in this, as far as medicine is concerned, is the often generic reactions to drugs, rather than the preferred 'one drug suites all states of one condition'. The banding, however, allows for the possibility of detecting biases within the individual. Using fringe medicine as an example, some may be prone to radionic treatment (or radiology in traditional medicine) whereas others may be prone to homeopathic treatment (chemotherapy in traditional medicine).