"When we take the notion of logical typing out of the field of abstract logic and start to map real biological events onto the hierarchies of this paradigm, we shall immediately encounter the fact that in the world of mental and biological systems, the hierarchy is not only of a list of classes, classes of classes, and classes of classes of classes but has also become a zigzag ladder of dialectic between form and process.
I .. suggest that the very nature of perception follows this paradigm; that learning is to be modeled on the same form of zigzag paradigm; that in the social world, the relation between love and marriage or education and status necessarily follow a similar paradigm; that in evolution, the relation between somatic and phylogenetic change and the relation between the random and the selected have this zigzag form" pp214-215 (Bateson 1979)
General outline of human brain Outline based on ordinality/cardinality distinctions
At birth we have a raw but integrated (whole) brain to a level where synesthesia is common. (Synesthesia is the
mixing of the senses - the neurology to handle sensory data is not fully differentiated, it is in potential mode,
and so the infant can respond as a whole to a particular sensory stimulus. As the sensory areas differentiate so
the infant's response becomes more sensory specific, audition stimulus can get an audition response, the infant
no longer turns all of their senses, including their body, in the direction of the stimulus).
Education (formal/informal. includes implicit adaptions to environmental conditions) - introduces further biases in sensory processing and cortical laterality and the development of the brain shows a scaling at work where general left/right distinctions give way to the characteristics of this distinctions being found within each distinction! This reflects recursion, fractal-like behaviour.
For example, in general the left hemisphere in most people is biased to 'what', or object, processing. Object processing implies a bias to 'point' determination and from this comes the concept of precision. Emotionally we see a positive to neutral frame of mind that is very single context such that when negative emotions are expressed they are done so in a very exaggerated, unsophisticated, intense manner, like that of a child. The object emphasis means an attraction to the particular and so the foreground, the text, is preferred over the background/context. These characteristics takes us into concepts such as reductionism, making things 'clear', fundamentalism, conservatism (dislike of change).
In general the right hemisphere in most people is biased to 'where', or relationships, processing. Relationships processing implies a bias to 'field' determination in that we deal with the space around objects, and so the relationship of objects to local and non-local context. This context, being 'background' is often seen as 'negative' in that the relationships act to constrain/restrain any objects. There is a link here to grammar compared to the object oriented left where grammar is limited to syntax, 'correct' ordering. Overall the right hemisphere is emotionally not as positive as the left and in fact the right is the source of critical thinking but this can be done in an extremely 'refined' way with lots of implications/innuendoes, never actually explicitly getting to the point. This hemisphere is thus very good at processing metaphors in that it is good at getting behind things as well as hiding things. By this I mean that the relationships oriented right favours illusion, to exaggerate or play-down boundaries (and so objects) within a context and so the ability to bluff, to puff-up or to disappear into the background (we here get into concepts such as a like for change and a more liberal, relativist perspective).
The perpetrator of these demands to puff-up/down stems from the interpreter emphasis of the left hemisphere.
The general 'field' or 'wave' bias of the right introduces such concepts as making approximations, probability emphasis, an emphasis on the general rather than particular although there is a possible precision-based skill in the form of a sense of artistic 'value'. There is an overall attraction to foreground-to-background relationships such that here we find the source of rules and regulations, guidance and control. The connection to refined grammar processing (semantics) implies an emphasis on algorithms and formulas and so GENERAL precision compared to more PARTICULAR precision of the left hemisphere (manifest in language thorough the use of syntax checking and refined inference ability). The relationships emphasis favours a bias to processing harmonics rather than the single-context tonic processing of the left.
Overall the right bias is more to a sense of 'all is potentially meaningful and linked together'; a strong sense of linkage BETWEEN when compared to the left that has a definite sense of meaning and an emphasis on linkage WITHIN.
What is noteworthy is that prior to about age 7, if one hemisphere is removed the other can take-on the 'missing' skills suggesting that both sides are 'similar' but hormonal/nurture can act to re-structure the neurology.
The above are 'basics' and function at the general 'left/right hemisphere' distinctions. It is this level of analysis that has been most dominant in Psychology-based experiments. When we zoom-in to a particular hemisphere, heading more into neuroscience areas of study, we in fact see the SAME object/relationships distinctions. This suggests a recursive or fractal-like process at work. Thus when we zoom-in to the left and right hemisphere we find two lobes, the temporal and parietal, that reflect the same relationships as the left and right hemispheres at a higher scale.
The temporal lobes have more of an emphasis on objects, the 'what', whereas the parietal lobes have more of an emphasis on relationships. the 'where'. We can call this Scale-2 whereas the more general 'left/right' distinction, the one most understood by the general populous, we can call Scale-1.
If we now zoom-in further we shift to Scale-3. Here we find a much tighter association of the object/relationships 'threads' in that we find areas of both hemispheres, lobes, that have within them a very refined 'interdigitation' of the object 'thread' and relationships 'thread'. Thus we have a scaling of brain-hemisphere-lobe.
For example, in the visual cortex (occipital lobe) the left and right fields of vision are broken-down into the left-eye left-field interdigitised with the left-eye right field and the right-eye left-field is interdigitised with the right-eye right-field. Thus in both the left and right occipital lobes we find a pattern that looks like this: LRLRLRLRLRLR. (this is brought-out using particular types of dyes. What we see is banding across the surface of the cortex.)
When we zoom-in on the frontal lobes of BOTH hemispheres we find the same sort of pattern except that now we are dealing with abstract data processing. In these areas we find the same 'interdigitation' except that now left/right (L/R) manifests an abstract process. In these areas connections come from other parts of each hemisphere with the links passing through the corpus callosum. Using the 'lingo' we have an ipsilateral connection (same hemisphere) juxtapositioned with a contralateral connection (other hemisphere link) and so LRLRLR (left frontal) -- LRLRLR (right frontal). Furthermore, the contralateral link is divided into links to the same area in the other hemisphere vs links to other areas in the other hemisphere.
It seems as if these patterns occur throughout the brain for when we zoom-in to the amygdala, part of the limbic system and so underneath the neocortex, we find the same interdigitations but now based on the behaviour of fight/flight.
Thus the behavioural patterns we usually associate with the general left-hemisphere/right-hemisphere are not so cut'n'dried in that these GENERAL behaviours are refined through more PARTICULAR behaviours that are more lobe (and 'lower') specific. In fact the emphasis seems to point to an abstraction of the characteristics of the basic neuron - axon is more 'left' and dendrites are more 'right' and in the middle is a mediation system based on excitory/inhibitory processes affecting cell firing and so introducing synchronisations.
When using dyes to bring-out the above-mentioned banding, we find that when we scrape-away the surface the banding starts to fade and become diffuse. This brings out the hierarchic characteristics of the neurology in that the banding intensity is restored if you compensate for scale changes.
Both sides will attempt to use their refined systems before their 'gross' systems and thus the detectable degrees of laterality (especially detectable when the corpus callosum is cut). In everyday thought there seems to be an oscillation LRLRLRLR. This would seem to be context based as the time of the oscillation for different tasks can vary from milliseconds to years (as in manic / depressive illnesses, for example. The average period is about 90-110 minutes). This oscillation seems to be a sum of the combination of circadian rhythms, diurnal rhythms, together with a 'natural' oscillation of the attention system.
Recent work by Professor Jack Peddigrew at the University of Queensland has brought-out the oscillations in Manic-Depressives where it seems that for manic depressives the oscillations are slower than normal and so in any given period more time is accumulated 'in' a hemisphere. In general, this can act to exaggerate the features of that hemisphere and so bring-out the intense, manic, single context, single-mindedness of the left followed by the now intense but relationships oriented (and so a negative bias) of the right expressed in the form of depression.
Note that this work is very 'totalist' in that one hemisphere was 'knocked-out' leading to the expression of the other. Other work has suggested that both hemispheres can operate 'independent' of each other if they are not required to cooperate in processing data. Thus two tasks, each specific to the abilities of a particular hemisphere can function at the same time. This implies possible independent clocks rather than one clock running both left and right. (Split brain subjects have shown this concurrent processing.)
Based on the 'fractal-like' patterns observed, we now need to zoom-in so we can consider the lobe level, although work on anterior damage to both hemispheres show:
(a) a damaged left leads to the emergence of a compensation as the right takes over control and as a result we see an expression of depression.
(b) a damaged right leads to the emergence of a compensation as the left takes over control and as a result we see an expression of mania.
Pedigrew's finding of a slow oscillation at work in MDs refines our understanding of the 'natural' oscillations.
Consider the following list of some of the characteristics biases I have identified reflected in this asymmetry, I use the distinctions of 'thread' to emphasise the weaving nature within these distinctions in that they apply at all scales from hemispheres to lobes within hemispheres to neural nets within lobes to the neuron itself. All characteristics are based on comparisons of one side to the other:
|
Left Thread |
Right Thread |
| Particular | General |
| Local | Non-Local |
| Objects | Relationships |
| The ONE | The MANY |
| Precise (quantitative precision) | Approximate (qualitative precision) |
| What (Who,Which) | Where (How, When) |
| Tonic | Harmonic |
| Internal Linkage (within) | External Linkage (Between) |
| Syntax/Semantics | Semantics/Percepts |
| Single Context | Multi Context |
| Exagerate, Distort | AS-IS |
| Known | Unknown |
| Ordered | Disordered |
| Non-Change | Change |
| Ordinality | Cardinality |
| What IS | What IS NOT |
| delusion | illusion |
| repression | supression |
| What WAS | What COULD HAVE BEEN |
| What WILL BE | What COULD BE |
| +1/-1 | zero/infinity |
| Text | Context |
| Foreground | Background |
| Quantitative | Qualitative |
| Expression | Behind Expression |
| Self | Others |
| The Dot | The Field |
| Particle Interpretations | Wave Interpretations |
| Metonymy (part-for-whole) | Metaphor (whole-for-whole) |
| Axon-like (pulse, FM = SEQUENCE, Ordinality) | Dendrite-like (wave amplitude, AM = SIZE, Cardinality) |
| neuron | synaptic 'soup' |
| dopamine biased (internal linkage emphasis, internal integrity) | serotonin biased (external linkage emphasis, social integrity) |
| psychosis, schizophrenia | neurosis, depression |
| identify | re-identify |
| blend, bound (feeling terms for whole, parts) | bond, bind (feeling terms for statics, dynamics) |
| Vectoring | Waypointing |
There is a suggestion that the concept of 'truth' is tied to our animal cousins and their mapping of territory; the abstract concept of truth is rooted in the simple, local distinctions of identifying 'my' territory from that of someoneelses. The method in which this is done, through what is called waypoint and vector mapping, when generalised and so abstracted is transformed into the feeling of 'right' from 'wrong' and that is tied in to syntax processing. (This feeling has been sourced in the left hemisphere of humans, note how EITHER/OR this feeling is. This either/or emphasis reflects the distinction of square-wave from fourier transform where the latter sums waves to approach the 'pure' square-wave; in other words fourier tranforms are like summing aspects, harmonics, of a whole but despite the level of precision possible you can never absolutely assert 'the whole' since the list of harmonics is infinite.)
Truths come in degrees, personal, cultural, universal, and this reflects the hierarchic format we find operating in brain function. Consider the following table:
| Objects | Relationships |
| Whole | Parts & other Relationships (Statics, Dynamics) |
| Parts (wholes in a relationship to a greater whole) | Relationships (Statics, Dynamics) |
| Static | Dynamic |
Moving from top to bottom, there is a zig-zag pattern in this table reflecting analysis using dichotomisations. At the second level (whole- parts & other relationships) there is a GENERAL distinction that we then refine by objectifying the concept of parts, we identify them as wholes in their own right. We next zoom-in again on the relationships side and change scales to make the distinctions of static vs dynamic where a static emphasis, an invariance emphasis, implicitly ties to an 'object' concept.
[The following emerge from refinement where we start to MIX left and right] (1:1 bias 1:many bias many:many bias) (ALL ALL/SOME SOME) (YES YES/NO YES/NO/FANTASY/MEANINGLESS)
This allows for the occasional 'blunders' where the overall functionality of hemispheres seems reversed - left-handedness etc. The precision/approximation dichotomy seems to be fairly fundamental thus allowing for LH control of handedness etc and the LH processing of visual, but explict serial biased, language eg ASL.
The fine/gross audition/vision skills seem to be the 'roots' of the possible biases, with auditory communication having a sequential and locational bias (and so precision) and visual a non-sequential/aspectual bias. It is documented, for example, that the RH auditory area has a bias to dealing with sounds considered to be 'unknown' compared to the LH handling the 'known' or 'named', this can also be interpreted as the RH being more bias to identifying 'what could be' sounds.
Intent has an affect on mental activity. If you assume data to be explicit known communication then an LH bias emerges, if not, an RH bias emerges with its statistical abilities in dealing with this sort of information where contextual analysis, a skill of the right, takes over to help identify an unknown.
Thus the more likely LH/RH processing, is that the right deals with 'what could be' rather than 'what is', and so the association of 'whole' processing with the right is slightly incorrect; the right has to identify by looking at aspects first. We can 'see' this in face recognition where aspectual analysis (RH) happens the first time we see the face, which we then explicitly identify ('name') and future exposure to the same face ellicits more LEFT hemisphere identification.
This suggests that LH stroke victims who have less degrees of lateralization or who have learnt serial language in a rote manner (as 'whole sounds' in the form of a linked list rather than independent words etc) may have better serial language recovery skills than the 'average' individual. Support for this is the ability for LH stroke victims to sing whole songs (RHbias in the form of considering all of the aspects OTHER than explicit location/sound) which they learnt at a young age (and thus as strongly relational and so GENERAL rather than PARTICULAR) but are unable to stop halfway and start from where they left-off. Since the songs are interpreted as 'one complex sound' they can only be started from the beginning. However, note that it is possible that these songs are learnt as an explicit sound - text only and it is the ability to LINK words that has failed but if the words are 'all one sound' then no linkage occurs.
Both sides handle vision/sound but the biases favour methodology. The RH, for example, handles explicitly unidentified sounds, sounds that are NOT considered to be explicit, known, serial communication, whereas the LH handles explicit visual stimulus that is considered to be known serial communication, e.g. ASL (and requires serial relational analysis). The biased noticed to RH handling emotions stems from the rich emotional links in hierarchy (multi-context) compared to the limited (and therefore apparently 'gross') links in single context. (LH can be emotively articulate but it requires time to build.).
Overall, ALL of the attributes given to one hemisphere are inherant in the other, but in a less refined state, and thus the detectable biases. Thus, in the severely brain damaged, one side can take-on the functionality of the other if allowed to do so at an early age, whilst the brain is still in the process of developing the observed lateralizations. Once the development process is slowed, then this task becomes more difficult, if not impossible.
This suggests that the older but balanced brain (reduced development of lateralization through education) may be able to recover faster from injury.
Studies have shown that intent has an affect on the way we handle identical data and thus shows-up the methodology biases. I suggest that the root 'causes' of the object/relationships concepts derive from characteristics in primary sensory systems (audit/vision on this planet) that have become hybridized - parts of the brain share neurons for both systems. Infact the degree of interdigitation (ie. LRLRLR) seems to be high at the neurological level and adaption seems to enhance this. (if hybridization occured in the primary sensory areas then a lifeform would find adaption difficult! but there is strong linkage (intra & inta) at the more abstract-handling areas). Psychologically, this correlates with the high degree of synesthesia often found. Education (adapt/adopt) leads to the differentiation of the senses, and thus the varing degree of 'banding' in individuals. The banding variations manifest the adapt/adopt system and favour, using genetic terms, 'phenotype' over the potentials in 'genotype'.
There is the suggestion that creativity is affected by biased sensory differentiation. Thus LH bias creativity is more innovative (almost context free or else sets own context) when compared to RH bias creativity that is adaptive (works within a given context). By using a hierarchic approach we inherit the property of everything having it's place and thus a subtle limiting on going out of the boundaries. The relational approach does not recognize the boundaries - everything is 'equal'. (note that this can force 'little things' to be exagerated and so lead us into depression etc) By combining both biases one can both create (innovate) and refine (adapt).
The hybridization concept, if applied at the root structural level (crossover at cell division being a 'logical' point) favours the dichotomous nature of structures as well as the dichotomous nature of our thought processing, thus including the detected gross and refined hemispherical biases of the neo-cortex and other systems.
Implied in this is that, through structural development, the left / right dichotomy becomes more refined and thus manifests at it's most refined level, a continuum.
This would explain the paradoxical observations made on the brain's structure where apparent LRLR patterns at, say, the centermetre level seem to dissapear at the millimetre level. This would be logical if you tried to maintain a constant pattern. The study of each level of analysis must include a manipulation of the 'size' of the interdigitation as well as being wary of the 'phenotype' situation which introduces subtle differences within each form (like fingerprints). A scaled hierachy would manifest this.
This interdigitation may have it's roots in the primary sensory areas of vision and audition due to the nature of our eyes and ears. The sharing of neurons allows for abstractions to be made where the abstract concepts of 'wholes' and 'parts', common to both systems, can be shared.))
Note that the aspects/whole (text/context) dichotomy can be in 1:1 form when we are first exposed to a 'whole', at either the atomic level or the universal level. This first exposure forms part of the base context for all that follows, the moment we cut, or build, the aspects/whole patterns of hemisphere biases emerge.
In addition to this is the 'driver', the attention system (rCBF suggests cingulate cortex sourced).
The attention system works on the dichotomy of narrow angle(manic-specific)/ wide angle(phobic-general). This system influences concepts of subjective time by varying metabolic rates and may have some 'connection' to seperation/ linkage. It's apparent centralized zone of activity (anterior and posterior cingulate cortex) allows for a degree of bias managment as it metaphorically 'swings' along the left/right axis as well as the anterior/posterior axis.
Note that there is a pattern of oscillation on L/R hemispheric processing that seems to show an overall cycle of 90-110 minutes. This seems to be an extension of the REM/NonREM pattern found in sleep (or the more likely is that sleep research brought-out this continuous pattern before awake states analysis were refined enough to get over any consciousness 'noise').
However, this suggests an overall biased pattern with sub-variations for different types of tasks oscillating at any thing from milliseconds to years. (the bilogical 'clocks' seem to be located in the limbic system, with a bias to hormonal control. Therefore, any model of oscillation needs to include the influences of these clocks.)
MANIC (refined, narrow angle)
(anterior - associative biased areas)
^
|
LEFT (-----------------+-----------------) RIGHT
(refined single context | (refined multi-context
bias) | bias)
(reductionist) | (illusionist)
(serial) (----)|(----) (parrallel)
(relational) | (hierarchical)
V
(posterior - sensory biased areas)
PHOBIC (gross, wide angle)
Note the bias to dichotomies and realize that all dichotomies, when studied in detail are shown to be continuums; SpaceTime continuum, LeftRight continuum etc., and thus the emphasis on 'bias'. The above diagram is therefore a gross top-level picture, that could be repeated, in its entirity, at a lower level within a localized area of bias.
The overall emphasis is on the strongly dichotomous nature of description, as well as the wholes/aspects , object/relationships, approach.