>
> KARL JASPERS FORUM FOR TARGET ARTICLES
>
> A COMMON LANGUAGE
> by Christopher John Lofting
>
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> In our attempts to describe 'out there' there seems to be a
> feedback process occurring that gives us insight into the
> operations of 'in here'. This feedback comes in the form
> of the structure of these descriptions ('maps') in that
> there is an ease in forming analogies across the
> disciplines that create these maps even though these
> disciplines, on the surface, appear very different. This
> suggests an underlaying commonality that is species-based
> and forms the template upon which all our maps are based.
> This implies that our models of 'out there' are more models
> based on projections of 'in here' functionality to a degree that
> resolutions to apparent 'paradoxes' can be found by looking
> IN - it is Psychology/Cognitive Science that can help resolve
> 'problems' in Physics.
>
> <1>
> The common language that we all share and that enables
> us to create maps of reality and establish a sense of shared
> 'meaning' is founded on emotion. (see later for more details).
>
> <2>
> This emotion stems from our use of dichotomisation when
> making these maps in that there is an emotive tie between
> every level of dichotomous development and the
> establishment of 'meaning'.
>
> <3>
> This tie implies that, at least for all dichotomously derived
> maps, all 'meaning' is registered 'in here' and does not exist as
> we know it 'out there'. This will be expanded upon later in
> this article but first some 'background'...
>
> <4>
> So-called objective approaches to reality are founded on
> what I call left-hemisphere biased behaviours that are rooted
> in the concept of location and direct, explicit identification
> and a tendancy to reductionism. These approaches seek
> 'self-containment' and an emphasis on independence. (there
> are some 'absolutes' - e.g. a cell, an electron, a sine wave.)
>
> <5>
> In the development of any model, initially there is a bias to
> the behaviours described in [4]. The emphasis is neutral to
> positive. The moment we get into 'deeper' analysis so
> emerges the use of analogy and an emphasis on A/~A and
> more refined categorisations.
>
> <6>
> Once we have reached a very refined degree of analysis
> so we start to use statistical methods since we have entered
> the realm of dynamic relational activity,BUT this area is also
> the area of metaphor, symbols, and the creation of illusions.
>
> <7>
> The area described by [6] is related neurologically more
> with 'what could be?' processes and the establishment of
> indentification through aspectual considerations other than
> 'location' - which is often only an approximation and so an
> emphasis on aspectual contexts (colours, harmonics). This is
> linked to right-hemisphere biases. (note that as we go
> 'deeper' in the structures so we find a mixing of left and
> right...). The creation of symbols and metaphor lead to the
> *replacement* of 'out there' with a representation 'in here'.
>
> <8>
> An RH instigated 'successful' identification is when all
> of the aspects 'join' to create an apparent 'fact' - something I
> can point at and say "YES - THATS IT!". This neurological
> behaviour is abstracted in QM to the concept of a wave
> collapse.
>
> <9>
> >From these points, there is the suggestion that our manner of
> making maps has stucture and this structure is then projected
> 'out there'.
>
> <10>
> If we now include the workings of our senses we can
> detect even more qualities of QM that are in fact qualities
> from 'in here'.
>
> <11>
> For example, our visual system has a real problem with
> dealing with complex line drawings that are ambivalent - e.g.
> Necker Cubes. Once the pattern of the cubes are
> detected within the drawing, so the mind oscillates between
> the two forms; there is difficulty in seeing two things
> occupying the same space. (note that by adding colour - a
> harmonic - so things change).
>
> <12>
> Our auditory system, on the other hand, has no problem in
> dealing with apparent superpositions in that the elements are
> treated as harmonics of a whole and we can be more precise
> about our responses - we can listen to the whole or else
> emphasise one of the harmonics (or oscillate). This control
> seems stronger in audition than in vision (in the visual
> system we have to turn the drawing around so that we are
> again dealing with a complex 'whole' - but the brain soon
> picks this up and goes back to oscillations.)
>
> <13>
> The difference between <11> and <12> deal with
> containment in that <12> has text and context combined in a
> tighter configuration than <9> simply because <10> is biased
> to dealing with concepts like superpositions. (note that in
> vision, colour is a later development and even in humans
> there are genetic related disorders that still cause degrees of
> colour blindness...and mostly in males who seem to have a
> more 'objective' LH-biased perspective on reality.)
>
> <14>
> Let us now consider the concept of 'particle when we look'
> and 'wave when we dont look': it has been noticed in QM
> that the stucture of an object depends on the manner of
> analysis, such that in the double-slit experiment, if I place a
> detector at one of the holes then I detect a particle. But if I
> accumulate data and just look at the photographic plate I
> detect a wave pattern.
>
> <15>
> The distinction made in <14> reflects brain structure (see
> TA3 for details) the 'what is' bias of the left - particle - versus
> the 'what could be' bias of the right - waves - but also notice
> that the photographic plate shows BOTH elements in that I
> have the black dots made by the particles that AS A GROUP
> show wave behaviour.
>
> <16>
> The distinction in <15> regarding the format of the
> photographic plate demonstrates the MIXING of LH and RH
> processes in our making of maps of reality - our mind affects
> our perceptions as well as the manner in which we create
> experiments.
>
> <17>
> So let us analyse this mixing closer. We note that the
> photographic plate contains TWO types of information -
> specific locations of dots where photons have 'hit' the plate
> and an explicit pattern that emerges OVER TIME that
> suggests (implication) some sort of wave interference at
> work.
>
> <18>
> Now note that this development of a wave pattern is like the
> development of ANY statistical model over time - the
> SUMMING of aspects to create a 'whole' - and in fact
> resembles the SAME development process I have
> outlined regarding the brain's methods of analysis - the
> process described in <4> to <6> above in that OVER TIME
> we move from direct identification to indirect identifications
> and the latter is wave oriented.
>
> <19>
> To refine the analysis of 'what is happening' we make the
> 'simple' observation that the most talked-about experiments
> in QM deal with dichotomies - the two holes of the double
> slit, the single hole of the Airy pattern that functions between
> the state of closed or open, and the use of polarisers.
>
> <20>
> In all of these there are 'strange occurences' that need
> explanation and these can be done through dichotomous
> analysis: (a) In the double slit experiment, it is based on
> EITHER one hole is open OR the other hole is open OR
> BOTH wholes are open. In this, the LATTER is the
> MIDPOINT between the former conditions. (EITHER left
> OR right). (b) The single slit is based on EITHER the hole is
> closed OR the hole is open OR the hole is HALF
> closed/open. Again the emphasis on the MIDPOINT and it is
> when at this point that the interference pattern occurs (Airy
> used electrons to fire through the hole and then to travel on
> to a photographic plate). (c) The polariser experiment is
> based on a vertical polariser followed by a horizontal
> polariser that then has a HALF (45 degree) polariser inserted
> BETWEEN the two. (similar to (b)) When we introduce the
> HALF system so photons appear the other side of the
> experiment having passed through ALL three systems.
>
> <21>
> In all three cases of <20> implied wave interference patterns
> emerge when we introduce the MIDPOINTS; when we move
> from EITHER/OR states to BOTH/AND states.
>
> <22>
> What we see here is that we start with a dichotomy of A/~A
> (EITHER/OR) and the inclusion of midpoints introduce C =
> A AND ~A (this is the intersection). In logic this is called
> the excluded middle and is supposed to be 'empty' - it isn't
> for it contains all the POTENTIAL states - all of the
> POSSIBLES - the BOTH/ANDs, and leaving these
> experiments over time helps to accumulate examples of all of
> these possibles.
>
> <23>
> SO? you ask. How is it that this pattern can be seen to be 'a
> wave'? Well, I reply, it deals with dichotomous relationships
> - the root of 'The common language' - which I deal with next:
>
>
> <24>
> Studying the manner in which the mind categorises leads one
> to the observation that there is a lot of 'pairing' going on and
> this pairing has two forms. One form is relational in that we
> consider 1:1 relationships where both elements are
> 'independent' but have some sort of dynamic link. The other
> form is hierarchic (what Charles Peirce called 'inherital').
> This form is interesting in that the elements in the
> relationship can be seen as 1:1 but also as 1:many or even
> many:many. Furthermore, the *identity* of each element is
> *dependent* on the existance of the other element. For
> example, an assertion does not have to have its opposite 'in
> existence' but a negation does. Thus the moment we go
> beyond 'one' to 'two' we introduce negation: A/~A and
> this process is the step from <4> to <5> mentioned earlier
> (also in TA3) regarding brain development.
>
> <25>
> The above mentioned aspects of inherital dichotomies
> implies that the dichotomy is aspectual and so parts related,
> the elements being aspects of a whole are forever 'linked'
> simply because to seperate them means to seperate the whole
> and so lose the distinctions. Also note here that this
> structuring implies hierarchy and so ANY process of
> inherital analysis leads to permanent element linkage.
>
> <26>
> Inherital dichotomies are applied to refining our
> understanding of 'a whole'; as we analyse so we move from
> gross forms of description to more refined forms. This
> occurs by the use of feedback in that my initial distinction of
> something being A/~A is refined where making closer
> examination of A/~A I find SOME ~A in A and SOME A
> in ~A.
>
> <27>
> As the process of analysis goes on so the original A/~A
> distinctions become 'diffuse' and I find I am dealing with a
> MIX of both (Note that at all times I am dealing with a
> 'whole', which, by defination, is a closed system and
> everything is linked to everything else, thus maintaining the
> integrity of 'the whole'. In Taoism, a whole does not exist as
> long and you can *distinguish* yin and yang - which are the
> PARTS of a whole - like text and context).
>
> <28>
> When we get to refined levels of analysis, each step in the
> analysis has created another dimension (a dichotomy) and we
> find that a qualitative analysis suggests that the original
> A/~A distinction only represents a small percentage of 'the
> whole'.
>
> <29>
> In fact, when we 'map' all the possible findings based on
> ANY dichotomous analysis, what emerges is a normal
> distribution curve - simply from the analytical method
> applied. This 'curve' shows the emphasis on MIXING, where
> the area of highest probabilities is in the middle.
>
> <30>
> Thus, if I analyse something to six dimensions (1/-1) I will
> get 64 possible 'states', and so the number of possible states
> is 2 raised to the power of the number of dimensions.
>
> <31>
> Now comes an interesting phenomenon. As we develop our
> analysis so the states reflect developments OVER TIME and
> since I am dealing with a dichotomy there are FOUR
> *temporal* possibilities in two consecutive time frames:
> A followed by A
> A followed by ~A
> ~A followed by A
> ~A followed by ~A
>
> <32>
> Now, if I am in a position of NOT knowing which comes
> where then I have in fact THREE possibilites AA, [], or
> ~A~A (note that [] is ~AA OR A~A). (the experiments
> set-up using laser beams and interferometers generate these
> conditions in that a SINGLE photon of energy X is CUT into
> TWO photons of energy X/2. This is inherital
> dichotomisation. The paths are set-up such that I have the
> above possible mixes where BOTH can/cannot go one way
> or they go BOTH ways).
>
> <33>Going back to the normal distribution curve, since it is
> static in form, and we are now considering temporal
> relationships, some changes are required in that explicit
> representations of A~A and ~AA are no longer valid - they
> must be combined. For example, going to six dimensions
> gives 64 possible states which we can symbolise with a
> sequence of characters - say L for left and R for right: e.g.
> RRRRRR
> LLLLLL
> LRLRLR
> RLRLRL
> By considering temporal processes that are indeterminate I
> must reduce these in pairs, thus LR and RL become
> onesymbol, [], and so the above set becomes:
> RRR
> LLL
> [][][]
> [][][]
> and when we do this and group those elements that are now
> 'the same', irrespective of the number of dimensions we have
> used, we find a set of possible states that numbers 27.
>
>
> <34>
> When I then 'graph' the number of elements that 'fit' into one
> of these 27 I find a wave interference pattern in that 8 of the
> states are 'zero' (or to be more precise have only ONE
> element as a member) and 19 having varying multiples of 2
> as members. (see diagram below). This same graph is created
> when I plot the apparent wave interference patterns on the
> photographic plate of the mentioned QM experiments with
> the number of 'center' hits going outwards and getting thinner
> with 'blank' spots (the '1' areas) in between implying to the
> observer wave cancellation (I get 19 'obvious' bands where
> bands leak into each other and explicit 'blank' spots):
> number of members: 121242121242484242121242121
> states 1 to 27: 1--------------------------------27
> The more detail you add the more 'rounded' become the
> nineteen 'peaks' you see in this. (in the photographic plate,
> the darker become the 'rings'.) but if you look carefully you
> see that the middle section is a doubling of the two outer
> sections:
> 121242121 242484242 121242121
> and they ALL are multiples of a fundamental - 121.
> 121 242 121 242 484 242 121 242 121
>
> <33>
> What this demonstrates is the emergence of implied wave
> interference patterns whenever I consider ANY
> dichotomously-derived relationships over time and *this is a
> function of the statistically-biased method*. Furthermore the
> middle position is the sum of the outer positions.
>
> <36>
> The first occurrence of this 'lumpiness' in QM was Planck's
> consideration of black-body radiation which is a
> dichotomy-derived *temporal relationship*.
>
> <37>
> This pattern is part of the RH-biased aspectual processing
> system (as is the normal distribution curve) and again
> demonstrates 'in here' mapping and the 'fact' that any
> relationship over time will be 'lumpy' - some work and some
> dont, some are strong and some are weak.
>
> <38>
> In our attempts to map reality we use dichotomy in Science -
> in fact we use dichotomy in all categorisation systems simply
> because over time the middle gives us the areas of highest
> diversity and so choice - this is evolution at work. As we
> refine our maps so we enter the area of dynamic relationships
> - some of which are 'fact' and many of which are illusions.
>
> <39>
> In these areas we must be HIGHLY selective about what
> aspects we choose to get that "YES - THATS IT!"
> experience; especially when considering 'meaning' and
> 'reality' and it has been a lack of selectivity that perhaps
> has led to the current confusion amongst many regarding the
> 'nature' of QM.
>
> <40>
> With the above description I hope the reader can 'see' the
> mapping of 'out there' is influenced by the behaviours of 'in
> here' and I now wish to extend this into the establishment of
> 'in here' meaning.
>
> <41>
> In the process of categorisations, we use dichotomous
> methods. These are applied over time that 'moves' from a
> wholes biased analysis through a parts biased analysis to
> relational analysis between parts and between wholes and so
> an emerging degree of complexity that is 'rooted' in powers
> of 2. (Using Charles Peirce's terms of first, second, third,
> whole analysis is firstness, parts analysis is secondness, and
> relational analysis is thirdness. In these we find emerging
> contexts - one in firstness, two in secondness, and four in
> thirdness. Any further refinements will lead to increasing
> contexts but these will always emerge WITHIN these three
> steps and so be refinements rather than independent entities
> but the hierarchy of this implies that thirdness leads to a
> 'new' firstness that can be interpreted as 'real' whereas it
> is 'illusion' in an objective context but very 'real' in a
> sociological context.)
>
> <42>
> The moment we move beyond 'whole' analysis so we move into
> areas of differentiation and it is here that 'meaning' is
> refined and it is here the negation emerges.
>
> <43>
> At this point, our nature, combined with our nurture, enables
> the understanding of 'wholeness' in that it generates a 'feel'
> for what wholeness means.
>
> <44>
> As we deepen our analysis, so we start to make comparisons
> - the distinctions between 'a whole' and NOT 'a whole'.
> These distinctions create 'feelings' that are linked to these
> distinctions and can be generalised.
>
> <45>
> Finally we get to areas of thirdness where even more refined
> distinctions are made (and we enter the world of metaphor
> and symbol) and there emerges four types of 'meaning'.
>
> <46>
> >From firstness comes an emphasis on blending where text
> and context are one.
>
> <47>
> >From secondness comes an emphasis on bounding where the
> distinctions of text and context are made.
>
>
> <48>
> >From thirdness comes refinements to blending and bounding
> in the form of relational considerations - here linked to the
> terms bonding (static) and binding (dynamic).
>
> <49>
> Thus the "Common Language" is that of MIXING
> text/context, whole/aspects and using terms that are
> synonymous with this mixing. Furthermore, the creation
> of metaphors creates a base of four modes of representation
> within highly developed categorisation systems.
>
> [49] Thus the process of dichotomous categorisation comes
> with a linked set of 'meanings' and it is these that are
> refined through degrees of metaphorcation - thus 'blending'
> can be linked as text to a 'bonding' context giving a more
> complex overall emotive expression and it is this underlaying
> template of meaning that allows us to make analogies across
> many disciplines and find 'shared' meanings - this is the
> "Common Language" which forms the 'context' for all metaphors,
> analogies, symbols and enables a degree of resonance which
> enables 'understanding' and 'meaning' and it is this context
> combined with relational considerations that gives 'intuitive'
> assessments where the 'correct choice' of aspects give a
> 'sudden' awareness of something.
>
> <51>
> All of the 'in here' behaviour described above are used in the
> making of maps. Science and and Mathematics are just as
> much metaphor of 'out there' as are Astrology and
> Philosophy, but perhaps not as 'strong' in that they have not
> gone through many levels of abstraction/ symbolisation.
> However in conclusion we need to consider that, if life has
> evolved by adapting to the environment then perhaps we
> have adapted by internalising 'out there'. It is interesting to
> note that our cosmology reflects much of 'in here'
> characteristics (RH summing leading to blackhole concepts
> as well as the possibility of 'wormholes' etc)
>
>
> (Von Neumann noted that the QM wave collapse seemed to
> occur 'in the mind'...NOT the brain... THE MIND. If we treat
> the brain as a huge neuron and the mind as emerging from
> feedback then the transition from dendrite activity to axon
> firing becomes abstracted to a collapse of aspectual data
> (dendrites, right-hemisphere-like activity) to an explicit
> identification (axon firing, left hemisphere-like activity).
> Thus the moment of collapse is the trigger in the soma. If we
> then synchronise these firings and abstract that concept,
> we then have a system that maps the hierarchic biases
> observed in brain and mind...and 'out there'.)
>
> (Copyright (c) 1997 C.J.Lofting)
>
> [Chris Lofting is an analyst/programmer with
> Computershare Systems.
> e-mail ]
>