KARL JASPERS FORUM FOR TARGET ARTICLES
TARGET ARTICLE 3
A HEURISTIC DERIVATION OF NEO-CORTICAL FUNCTION
by Christopher John Lofting
ABSTRACT
A fundamental problem in the determination of human
behaviour has been our lack of understanding of the methods
in which the brain processes data. An extensive analysis of
neurological, psychological, and cognitive science research
has led to the development of a model of brain function
showing that overall functionality is very much dependent on
nurture's refinements on the genetically 'complete' infant we
are at birth, with the main neocortical biases being towards
location and disguise which we abstract to concepts like
'facts', 'truth', 'value', and 'quality'. - Furthermore,
the method in which we make maps of reality are more along the
lines of externalising our own properties and methods - but
there is the consideration that, due to evolution being
adaptive, perhaps we have adapted by internalising the
properties and methods of 'out there'.
KEY WORDS: brain, evolution, behaviour, lateralisation,
identification, neurology, psychology, neo-cortex
INTRODUCTION:
[1]
An analysis of the manner in which the brain processes
information has led me to the conclusion that Roger Sperry's
emphasis on wholes and aspects, and my emphasis of this in
my own work, is perhaps slightly over-emphasised. What
caused this re-analyse was my continually running into triadic
rather than dyadic models, and the 'fact' that these models
could elicit a degree of 'meaning' that was almost (!) 'stand-
alone'.
[2]
My analysis of these models has refined my views on structure
to a degree where the resulting model seems to shed an
excellent amount of light on the functioning of the brain, as
well as the brain's refinement - the 'mind', and the mind's
refinement - society.
HISTORY:
[3]
Sperry's preference, and the 'traditional' view since his work,
has been that there is a degree of lateralisation in the
hemispheres of the brain. This lateralisation is along the lines
of a linear-oriented, 'parts' biased left hemisphere (LH) and a
more non-linear oriented, 'wholes' biased right hemisphere
(RH). Even though research over time seems to have
'mellowed' this distinction, the distinction still finds favour.
However, combining more recent work with my earlier analysis
(Brain and Wholes/Aspects)>
has led me to slightly different conclusions and structural
concepts.
THE MODEL:
[4]
The brain of the newborn infant is a 'whole' in that it is a raw
but integrated system - the pinnacle of genetic creation.
[5]
Once born, as the infant develops so nurture introduces
sensory inputs that lead to degrees of sensory differentiation
(synesthesia seems to be 'common' in newborns implying a
lack of differentiation).
[6]
As the infant enters a time of 'conscious' awareness, so
sensory differentiation is refined even further - the child no
longer turns 'as a whole' to any sensory input but is more
selective of which sensory system to use to process the data.
[7]
What this implies is that the 'whole' oriented infant has
become aware of context and so the refining of the distinction
between 'me' and 'NOT me'. (Neurologically, I recall this
degree of distinction-making as being linked to the RAS).
[8]
A driving influence on the child as it develops is the process
of the identification of objects, and further refinements in
identification seem to be in a developing sense of *reflected*
identification in that an object can be identified by its aspects;
I can 'taste' lemon without having to see or feel it.
[9]
Despite these refinements, the lateralisation biases in humans
still seem 'obvious', but a slight 'change' in considering the
aspects discovered through neurological and psychological
research suggest that rather than the hemispheres being more
'wholes and aspects' bias they are both biased to
differentiating text and context of a whole. This may be a
subtle distinction but it does bear fruit.
SINCE THIS IS A 'BRIEF' ARTICLE, I HERE SUMMARISE:
[10]
The left hemisphere of the brain has a text bias where it's
context is only 'logic', where logic is a marker of 'correct
location'. In this space, the linking of text and context is very
'tight' and so a degree of 'intenseness' and self-containment
and a bias to reductionism - the removing of illusion to get at
the 'exact' location (abstracted to 'truth', 'fact', etc)
[11]
It is this emphasis on location (which I suggest has a bias to
auditory system roots - derived from using the ears as
detectors for localisation of prey or threats, as well as senses
of balance and so self-spatial location) that has been
abstracted to the concept of logic and an emphasis on relations
(syntax).
[12]
The LH apparent emphasis on text is an emphasis on 'me' -
and so a strong concept of 'self'. To use 'old' analogies,
this is like Freud's ID. As such, there is a degree of self-
containment in the ID which is intense and so direct in it's
approach; with identification being explicit and literal and
overall emotion being neutral or positive (the latter being an
aspect of LH functioning discovered 'lately' (80s)) (note also
that our language is also more self- contained than those
languages that ellicit RH activity; those RH languages using
ideograms etc are VERY context dependent. In our systems
the RH is more concerned with grammar etc - more context)
[13]
The right hemisphere of the brain has a context bias, where
text is only a too abstract or small or delicate or even
overpowering center, and so a reliance on aspectual data to
'shed light' on the text. Identification is therefore more
implicit and based more on metaphor.
It is this emphasis on context (which I suggest has visual
system roots but overall is concerned with disguise and
enhancement - and so the creation of illusion) that has been
abstracted to the concept of semantics - 'meaning' - and a bias
to a text that has 'value'.
[14]
In both cases it is context that supplies 'meaning' but in the
LH it is not as 'rich' as that possible from using the RH for
analysis; even if some of this 'richness' is illusional.
[15]
Overall, the 'whole' human being is, at any one time, more an
aspect of the continuum of possible states that can exist
within these two extremes, with nurture playing a major part
in developing a sense of balance (or a preferred extreme -
depending on the situation), and as such a preferred 'persona' -
a state of comfort from which to operate.
[16]
In one's life one can experience many different states on the
continuum, and each state will vary in refinement due to its
lack of use or its extensive use.
[17]
To continue the Freudian analogies:
ID - LH bias, text (self) oriented. literal, intense, syntax
bias, location bias. direct identification. Develops to being
Reductionist (remove illusion).
EGO - The middle. The maintaining of the distinction between
text and context. analogy bias used for identification.
Emphasis on maintaining balance (position). Categorise (map
illusions and 'reals')
SUPEREGO - RH bias. context (others) oriented. metaphoric,
diffuse, semantics bias. reflected identification. Develops to
being Illusionist (create illusion).
[18]
In the latter case it is suggested that the strong emphasis on
aspects can actually create a 'new' ID-like identity (or 'virtual'
identity - this leads into consideration of levels of refinement
etc where gross 'ID'-like behavour can be refined to a degree
of social success in the form of the more 'intense' 'me' oriented
individuals where text 'drowns' context and all is 'one'. e.g.
movie stars, 'dynamic' leaders, supreme athletes etc all
whom need to operate in their own contexts. See 'process of
identification' section below).
[19]
In this respect, ID and SUPEREGO are very similar in that of
'whole' identification - it is just a bias of direct or reflected
(like SUN or MOON), but at the same time these terms are
'gross' and serve only as markers for increasing degrees of
complexity where the attributes of left and right become
mixed.
[20]
EGO on the other hand attempts to maintain the distinctions
since this is the most 'balanced' position. (It is also the
position of highest possible diversity when we see ID and
SUPEREGO as extremes - it is the area of choice). This
maintaining of distinctions includes the recording of the
distinctions ('maps') and so we find that our maps are
often based on dichotomous distinctions and the use of
analogy. As we get more refined so our maps become more
like metaphor and can in fact REPLACE the object in that
they take-on a life of their own. This can lead to illusion
- the RH bias.
SOME RE-INTERPRETATIONS:
With this 'simple' model in mind (!), here are a couple of
traditional mappings that need rewriting:
[21]
'THE RH IS CONCERNED WITH HOLISTIC ANALYSIS.'
Sort of...it is more concerned with aspectual analysis, and so
context, and determining 'what could be' since the LH has
perhaps failed in determining 'what it is' or finds 'it' is
contextually 'indeterminate' as far as logic is concerned. It is
more refined in processing implicit communications - body
language, emotive tones etc., aspects of communication that
when summed can lead to an explicit identification (or
STRONG approximation) of a whole.
[22]
The RH is therefore the 'seat' of rich intuition and metaphor.
Since the brain seems to uses emotion to store contextual data,
it is more rich in emotional expression as well as refined
emotional detection - it is 'better' at face detection more since
it 'sees' the emotion (context) on the face rather than 'the
whole'; the LH can detect the 'text' but its context marker is
syntactic and so 'weak' when compared to emotional
expression.
(there is also LH-biased 'logical' intuition which is more an
implicit awareness of 'correctness' than anything else. Thus
intuition is a function of BOTH contexts).
[23]
'THE RH PROCESSES 'WHOLE' SOUNDS'
Sort of...it is more concerned with implicit identification.
Sounds that the LH does NOT identify as parts of linear
communications are processed in the RH in that it tries for
contextual mapping - e.g. 'what could it be?' Same thing with
harmony in that it is harmony that supplies the CONTEXT for
the melody. People who start to read music dont 'experience'
the music and so a more LH degree of activity in their actions
- the 'feel' is more in the 'correct' sequence of notes. As they
develop so they can 'see' the context of the notes and express
more 'feel' but they still have to play the tune through a couple
of times to get that 'feel'; so they start with text and location
and develop contextually from there. On the other hand, those
NOT trained in music will use more aspectual (RH) methods
when listening and more approximations when trying to play.
'Good' musicians are a refined mixture of both in that they can,
for example, start on the third bar, second note of section X
and sound 'complete' - there is no hesitation or 'feeling-around'
for the notes and the overall expression - they can capture the
correct location (text) and 'feel' (context) and their static and
dynamic relationships as one (a whole).
SUGGESTIONS & SPECULATIONS:
[24]
This distinction of text/context leads directly to the derivation
of concepts like Calculus where the consideration of
text/context is found in the degrees of derivation:
location (text)
velocity (text / context distinction) - 1st derivative
acceleration (context - relativity etc.) - 2nd derivative
This is qualitatively hierarchic and we continue to find
hierarchy in brain structure which 'suggests' a gross model for
data processing, namely a process from textual identification
to contextual identification, with the latter 'leading' to a 'step'
up (or down) in hierarchy and so another level of refinement.
(Thus the 'next' level in Calculus starts with the concept of
action).
[25]
In the light of this model, it is interesting to consider the
American philosopher Charles Peirce's concept of firstness,
secondness, and thirdness in the making of symbols. He starts
with the concept of firstness as being monadic and an ICON.
We would link this to LH activity of 'text' plus 'location'. The
next step is the analysis of this icon through dyadic processes
- dichotomies. This is 'secondness' and any identification is in
INDICES where we make the distinctions of text/context in
that we 'tease' one 'out' of the other, so creating an indices to
possible aspects.
[26]
The 'final' step is that of thirdness and the creation of a
SYMBOL. Note that in the text/context model, the thirdness is
strongly contextual in that it is more SYMBOLIC of the text
than the text itself.
[27]
I suggest that this process does not stop here since we are
dealing with hierarchy and so a degree of feedback in that the
output of one level becomes the input of another - this is
recursion, but also note that the attributes given to the RH
introduce the concept of emergence and so modern concepts
like complexity theory etc where contextual 'summing' can
lead to a 'textual' emergence. (as far as Peirce is concerned I
also feel that there are qualitative distinctions of the levels
and so a more hierarchic processing where secondness and
thirdness are more elements of a binary tree (1-2-4) so they
have modes of representation where there are fundamentally
four modes of metaphor to describe one 'thing'.
For identification, overall we go: literal --> analogy -->
metaphor as the process of 'full' identification, with analogy
having two divisions and metaphor four. As we go to higher
levels of analysis so an emerging binary tree.
THE PROCESSES OF IDENTIFICATION:
[28]
OBSERVATION:
The above has asserted two basic modes of identification -
direct, or emitted, and indirect, or reflected. Reflected
identification is described by the concept of a tunnel. A tunnel
is maintained by it's context - I remove the context and there is
nothing left - the concept is an illusion. However, the
maintaining of the illusion can be of 'value' in the
establishment of meaning (as well as putting highways
through mountains).
[29]
Emitted identification is described by the concept of a stick in
that if I remove all context the stick still remains - it is a 'hard'
fact. (even if, due to the removal of its LH location-biased
context it is a bit 'out of place'. I suppose that 'pure' identity
would have to be by 'feel' since the use of light to see it
implies a degree of reflective identification. A light bulb on
the other hand is perhaps a better example in that there is also
a degree of intensity).
The base structure for emitted and reflected identity is the
same: text and context.
THE PROCESSES OF DESCRIPTION:
[30]
In our descriptions of reality we will use terms that describe
the mixing of text and context. I have defined four 'generic'
terms that seem to encapsulate all of the possible descriptions:
[NOTE - these are detailed elsewhere in this site...]
Blend : This is like a whole in that text and context are mixed
to such a degree that they appear as 'one' - direct/emitted
identification. The only context is, simply, 'location' (and so
concepts like 'truth')
Bond: This describes a whole where the text/context
distinction is possible but not 'separated' - like the distinction
of the yolk from the white of an egg.
Bound: This describes a whole by separating text from
context and a following emphasis on direct contextual analysis
or indirect contextual analysis. This area is in fact two-fold in
that the direct mode looks at location concerns (dynamic
relationships) whereas indirect mode looks at content concerns
(static/structural relationships). There is an emphasis on
using dichotomies of two basic types - relational where the
elements are self-contained, and what Charles Peirce call
'inherital' in that the elements are like text and context -
forever tied together.
Bind: This describes a whole by 'summing' (more like binding
- a lattice, and so the concept of the crystalisation of a thought)
all of the aspects (both dynamic and static) and it has the
attribute of possibly creating illusion. (we can also unbind in
that we strip-away aspects in an orderly manner - we are
required to follow steps - this use of sequence is not so strong
when making distinctions by bounding/unbounding things.)
[31]
In our current culture we are very much at the level of binding,
and although there are some 'hard' facts in the universe, there
seems to be more 'illusion' in that as we strip-away aspects of
something to identify it so the process leads to there being
nothing left - the tunnel effect. (in art this is like finding
'identity' in the aspects of the lighting rather than the thing lit.)
and at the same time we can group (bind) 'aspects' to create
something 'real' which 'out there' is an illusion.
[32]
We can see from this how the concept of 'god' or any other
form of spirituality can emerge in that it comes from the
summing of aspects (and so is very much 'in here' and has the
potential for being illusional or at best 'virtual'/'emergent'. But
with this is the property of a 'tunnel' or 'gateway' to another
level - which is exactly what we do when abstracting
information. This is the manifestation of hierarchic structure at
the neurological end. - but note that all 'meaning' is rooted
'in here' and has gross and predictable structure).
[33]
From this we can also see the rejection of 'spiritual' concepts
by the more logically minded in that to them it is difficult to
comprehend something that 'lacks' location - their
fundamental contextual consideration, but at the same time if
given location the more LH oriented can be very
fundamentalist. (there is also a tendency to be too literal and
attempt to take metaphor as 'fact'). To refine these left/right
distinctions, here are some associations:
SOME SIMPLE BRAIN HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATIONS
[34]
LH - explicit - location bias (the nature root), single
context (location) and so explicit text oriented, abstracted to
'truth'; 'correct'; 'logical'; syntax. a lot of males are 'here' -
intense, explicit, self-centered, self-contained, direct
identification, relational considerations, good visio-spatial
abilities (location bias) and so a developed sense of direction
(both determining and establishing). Emotions are more
positive/neutral (and unrefined, so negatives can be expressed
'intensely')
- 'direct light' - SUN analogies/metaphors. Overall text bias.
Seeks closure. Reductionist --> 'location'; the removal of
illusion. Has a gross language ability in that the idea is to 'get
the point across explicitly' - no more than that (minimal
aspects in that the message is a self-contained 'whole' such
that aspects in the form of separating context and text have
to be 'teased' out).
[35]
RH - implicit - difference bias (disguise creation and detection
- camouflage) (the nature root (genes)), pattern-matching,
multi-contexts (hue, shading etc) and so hierarchic and
statistical biased perspective; makes approximations.
Interference detection/creation (abstracted to the concept of
illusion and revelation), indirect identification (sum of
aspects) - a lot of females are 'here' in that they are very
aspectual in their considerations of identity. (hierarchic
context - shadings etc, harmonics considerations) - emotions
can be slightly negative - critical - also very refined ('cutting'))
- 'reflected light' - MOON analogies/metaphors. Overall
context bias. Resists closure (leave till the last minute...)
'Wholistic'. Refinements bias. (Alchemy). Dependence. Rich
language ability in that language is 'weaving', aspectual and
so 'implications'. Developed sense of deception (both
detecting and creating). Empathic. In our culture, intellectual
development leads into this area and so an increasing
requirement for being selective of aspects before 'direct'
identification takes place. Note that our culture is also very
much 'here' in that it is developing more and more into
illusional areas in that things can have 'value' in a social
'trendy' context but are 'fantasy'/'meaningless' in the eyes of
the universe 'out there'.
[36]
Combining RH and LH gives us a balancing 'middle' that uses
analogy rather than the RH bias to metaphor and the LH bias
to taking things literally. Our brain oscillates between RH and
LH when processing novel data which is then stored as a
whole and later recalled from deeper areas of the brain. This
'whole' will be a combination of RH and LH functions (but
with contextually determined biases) and so the use of illusion
to 'hide' (RH bias) can be mixed with the LH bias of an
emphasis on location to enhance location (e.g. The self). What
is important to note is that it is the initial emotive context that
sets the tone for all future considerations of this whole or
wholes apparently like it and this can be very difficult to
change.
[37]
The strong influence of initial context is what has helped
create much of counciling etc (e.g. psychoanalysis) in that it is
the changing of this initial context that is required to enable
the individual to 'stop' projecting the related emotions onto
future events of an apparently similar vein and so mixing
'fantasy' (past/future) and 'reality' (now).
MORE CONSIDERATIONS:
[38]
'Mind' is the mixing of left and right and the degree of mixing
will elicit biases in that one can operate in a context set by the
other - thus gender has less and less to do with 'mind' as long
as 'mind' is recognised as modifiable. (at the neurological
level we are dealing with something like a lattice - a binding
of text/context . Thus an infant is 'mixed' genetically but
'unrefined'. The differentiation of senses will enable selectivity
but there remains the overall 'mesh' - the bandings we find
in the brain show the degree of nurture refinements. So the left
and right hemispheres can reflect 'male' and 'female' aspects of
'nature' that in the context of 'mind' can become mixed and so
united giving the 'whole' human being and a refined sense of
'identity' and 'meaning'.
[39]
'Refined meaning' comes from the context - where the single
context of the LH is just refinements on locational and so
relational considerations. For the RH things get a little 'deeper'
in that refinements can elicit apparent text that is in fact an
illusion (cults etc can emerge from this).
[40]
These biases can emerge from neurological, pharmacological,
and sociological influences but the latter is always in the
context of the two former (nurture operates in a nature context
- no nurture and we can still operate 'instinctively')
[41]
One will often 'pick' a position of most comfort in the possible
range of LH+RH personas but will be able to shift if they have
had early experience of this - otherwise the groove becomes
too deep and their persona becomes entrenched. In extremely
novel situations an individual can adopt a different persona
but it will be unrefined and 'child-like'. Furthermore, the LH is
not so interested in change as is the RH since the RH needs to
maintain illusion and once an identification takes place so a
shift to establish a new illusion. For the LH, once a location is
established it is prefered to be kept - like a 'fact'.
[42]
The RH is strongly hierarchic and combining this with the
location concerns of the LH gives us basic social structures
(and games ;-)) Here we find the 'art' of social positioning and
group formations.
[43]
Also note that, for example, 90+% of teachers would fall into
the RH bias. (teaching by aspectual methods with a degree of
critical expression).
[44]
The 'Good' 'hard'-Science biased individuals have to be LH
bias with a slight RH leaning - and so 'balanced' - what Peirce
would call secondness; a distinctions bias. 'Soft' Science
moves more and more into aspectual considerations (but still
in the middle) - hard science is into 'location' and soft into
'revelation'...thus RH is more into statistical mappings where
emerging text is based on aspectual summing (and so the
possibility of illusion) This allows for complexity where we
have dynamic aspects that lead to 'emergence'.
[45]
In recent times some of science has moved into the areas of
thirdness - especially quantum mechanics where an increase
in statistical analysis emerges since we find it difficult to
explicitly identify things. But this process is based on
passages of time and so it is location that sets the context -
which gets into the basic patterns mentioned in the next
section (Mixing), as well the possibility of illusion and it is
easy to see how dualistic mappings of reality can emerge.
[46]
For the more artistically inclined, explicitly 'Good' artists are
also LH biased in that they assert their context (self-centered)
but with a bias to using aspects to create (they play with them
to intentionally create illusion) - and often their art is
determined to be 'good' or 'bad' by the more aspectual thinkers
rather than the artist themselves. This does not imply that RH
biased artists are 'no good' but more that they are more social
and aspectual in their work and so their creativity is more
adaptive than innovative and so may not 'stand-out' - the
'stand-out' process needs to start at firstness to have the chance
of being a 'universal' product rather than a cultural product, or
else a lot of work is required to 'create' firstness. Thus the LH
artist sets their own context whereas the RH artist is more into
variations of somebody else (e.g. with classical music and
opera - it is their interpretations that are acknowledged - their
attempts at refining or capturing the aspects produced by the
original composer. Thus Mozart comes across as an LH-bias
individual that set the context for the RH-biased players
who attempt to capture all of the aspects of his music to create
a feeling of 'direct' identification - or even 'refinement').
[47]
We can see from this the continuum of possible 'types' that can
emerge from LH+RH activity, as well as the 'need' of one for
the other - thus reflecting our own 'linked' states within, with
different levels of refinement.
Ideally it is the process of differentiation that leads to 'bias' but
the process of integration that leads 'back' to wholeness.
MIXING:
[48]
Since mind is more the 'mixing' of LH and RH we need to consider all
of the possible relationships and we find that in fact there are
restrictions imposed by these *location(LH)+illusion(RH)*
relationships (these restrictions are rooted in location concepts
of A/~A) and so we find that there are statistical patterns of 27
possible forms of which 8 are 'not possible' and 19 are. This
correlates with Aristotle and his considerations of the types of
syllogisms where all-up there are 256 possible permutations
but when the 'logic' of reality is applied these are filtered to 19.
[49]
What is of interest is that when we introduce 'illusion'
(imaginative concepts rather than things from 'out there') into
some of these 19, some of them 'fail'. Peirce seems to have
noticed this and further filtered the possible types down to a
base of 10.
[50]
Overall, these patterns emerge in LH+RH thinking - they
show us the RH bias to being *selective* in aspectual
considerations as well as emphasis and so the ability to elicit
'direct' identification with a minimum number of aspectual
considerations - we call this intuition. ('logical' intuition is just
the sudden knowing that something is 'true' or not).
[51]
Thus the 10 possible 'signs', as Peirce calls them, are forms of
combinations of RH and LH data that help to elicit something
'real' - and so RH analysis HAS to be more selective in how it
uses aspects - it needs the 'correct' aspects to generate an
explicit identification which is not an illusion. What this
brings out is a development path that has 'location' (self-
centered, ID-like) as the root context and RH-like
characteristics that emerge from this; so the path of mental
development is the refining of LH and RH characteristics with
a prefered initial context of LH-like attributes. What is
important to note is that some individuals (or even cultures)
could even emerge from a more RH-like context, implying that
nurture can 'bend' the initial context away from the self-
oriented or that even nature, in the form of genetic diversities,
could lead to the birth of more RH oriented development.
[52]
These variations in possible development allow for ID-like
states, that are LH rooted, to emerge in refined forms at higher
levels of refinement through the mixing with SUPEREGO-
like states of the RH; with age so we become more aspectual
and selective in our considerations but these can still lead to
'revelations' and a sudden expression of ID-like, but refined,
behaviour. (or for those who start with a more aspectual
manner, become more LH bias as they age. Overall we seek
balance and so 'wholeness'.)
[53]
In my own analysis of relational forms, there are 27 possible
forms that result from considering ANY pair relationships
over time. These emerge after about 2=D86 (2 raised to the 6th
power) dichotomous considerations in the process of
dichotomous analysis, and any further analysis, no matter to
what depth (e.g. 2=D8100) just goes to rounding the edges of the
pattern that emerges from this -an implied wave interference
pattern with 19 peaks and 8 troughs. What this emphasises is
that the forms are linked to the method of analysis and so can
be 'illusions' - and so careful considerations must be made
when analysing relational data.
DISORDERS:
There are basically two 'root' severe disorders, both of which
seem to originate in context and so influence the text - the self.
[54]
In 'generic' schizophrenia the 'problem' is where the location
'splits' and becomes 'many'. Thus the reasonably self-
contained individual starts to fall apart - but since there is only
one context this is emotively experienced as splitting apart - as
if the self is a virtual wave and stress (or hormones or wiring
problems) causes this superposition of wave to break apart
and go in different directions and so one location suddenly
has many locations - lots of selves.
[55]
In 'generic' depression the problem is where aspects become
'enhanced' in that the time elements (LH) get lost and so the
naturally contractive (negative) form of RH emotions (they
bind aspectual data) affect one's aspectually determined sense
of self; what text that was there has become diffuse. Thus
binding emotion is 'highlighted' in that the temporal context
has been removed and so location is no longer applicable.
(Even in normal circumstances it is often the RH oriented who
recalls negative events of some time ago whereas the LH
oriented often 'forget'). This affects the sense of self-worth and
so - depression (and possible suicide).
[56]
Since we are a mixture of left and right, so these diseases
come in mixed forms, and combined with attention problems
can lead to paranoid-schizophrenia or manic-depression in
that the attention system operates on the dichotomy of intense
narrow angle (mania) and diffuse wide angle (phobia),
however note that the generic models suggest that both
problems come from 'location' failures - the more LH oriented
'get' schizophrenia and the more RH oriented 'get' depression.
( I do realise that things may not be as simple as this 'out
there' but I think this basic model does enhance our
perceptions).
CONCLUSION:
[57]
Where does all of this come from? It comes from adaptions to
our environment and so implies that what is 'in here' is a
model of what is 'out there'. Furthermore there is feedback
involved in that we use this model to make maps.
Recalling the LH/RH distinctions, where LH is more particle-
like and the RH more wave-like, consider our mappings of
physics:
To do this we need to go back to earlier work on light in that
'whole' light (white), when hitting a transparent boundary
'breaks' into it's aspects. - e.g. prism.
The white light is explicit - we identify it directly. It then
becomes implicit in that we can only identify it by it's aspects
- coloured light.
Summing the coloured light (by passing it through a reversed
prism) leads to the white light emerging - but without
experimentation we would not know this or else we would
make suggestions on what happens when you combine the
coloured light but few would think that the result would be
'white'.
Considering these structural concepts we now refine them in
that prior to the work of Young, light was considered to be
'solid' - particles. We now consider Young's experiment that
'showed' light to be a wave.
This came from combining two light sources and 'seeing'
interference patterns that 'suggested' waves.
Now consider Einstein's analysis of the photoelectric effect - it
'demonstrated' that light was in fact 'particles' - photons.
Now note that the pattern of derivation is the same as that
used by the direct/indirect identification processes in the brain:
- explicit, solid->implied,aspectual, wave-like->explicit,solid.
(pre-Young,Young,Einstein)
This is first, second, third at work where we have gone
1-2-3-1
the 2 is analysis (LH+RH) and the 3 (RH) is the consideration
of the aspects discovered in 2 that when summed lead to 1
(LH) (and an intense feeling of 'correctness' - 'YES', 'Eureka'
etc.)
BUT the 1 that comes from 3 can be illusion. (and so the
extreme LH bias to 'denying' god or spirituality 'out there' etc
since it 'lacks' location. Note that this implies that wave
analysis (RH) is illusional - which it is in that the waves we
use in quantum mechanics etc are mathematical constructs -
probability waves - rather than something 'out there'.)
IN our determination of the identity of something we either do
it explicitly or implicitly where the latter is aspectual analysis
- the best method used being statistics. And so we have 'lies,
damn lies, and statistics'. ;-)
So here we either have 1-2-3 'out there' or else the 1-2-3
originates 'in here' and is causing us to create illusions of 'in
here' and out there .
[58]
I find the above model *very* useful in describing our models
as well as our methods of modelling reality and hope that the
reader finds the same benefits as I have.
REFERENCES and further reading list
Refs
clo@fmsc.com.au
ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
Diana.Diamond@anu.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
(copyright (c) 1997 C.J.Lofting)
[Christopher John Lofting, age 48, is Analyst/Programmer for
Computershare Ltd., - they make automated stock market
trading systems. He has been in this work for 19 years and
was a rock musician before that, for 10 years. University
drop-out, halfway through the second year, got bored, spent a
lot of time 'researching things'.
He is 'interested in what is behind our map-making in that
why esoteric areas still elicit feelings of 'value' despite
Science emphasising the 'lack of truth' in these sorts ofthings. As a
result 'discovered' a template that emerges from
the use of dichotomous analysis - common in the making of
maps - this template elicits 'meaning' as is linked to the
method rather than the object 'out there' - so all
dichotomously derived maps 'share' meanings and so it is
easy to create analogies etc. This suggests that even maths
and science are metaphor (if only 'weak'). All of this is
covered (if in a slightly unrefined way) at my website, which
needs some rewriting after my most recent considerations. ]