Recent studies in the neurosciences, psychology, and psychiatry suggest that there is a fundamental form of thinking that is shared with all of the members of our species. This thinking emphasises an object approach to all data.
Object thinking in its purest form is context insensitive. When an object is placed in a context the result is a particular expression. In general, the human brain filters data into the categorisations of objects and relationships. Relationships act as rules and regulations that go towards guiding/controlling the objects with the result being a particular expression.
Using this perspective we can see a development path from concrete 'out there' concepts to abstract 'in here' concepts with all having the same properties and methods.
Thus object + relationship = expression. Another word for expression is communication and from that comes the concept of language and with this distinction comes the linking of an alphabet to a set of objects and a grammar to a set of relationships. (Note that we can have ONE object in the set. The language emerges from the placing of this one object in many contexts and so many expressions)
With this in mind we can list all sorts of expressions that go back to this fundamental form:
Alphabet + grammar = expression.
Amino acids + DNA = expression.
Genome + Rules = Phenotypes aka expression.
Fermions + Bosons = expression.
Particle + Field = expression.
T'ai Chi + yin/yang = expression.
These fundamental distinctions are combined dynamically to create the expression and this process involves a number of possible forms:
(a) Going from the particular to the general.
(b) Going from the general to the particular.
(c) Presenting the particular AND the general at the same time, perceivably independent of each other where it is the interference of the expressions of the particular and general that leads to a 'new', perceived expression.
For an example of (a), the concept of induction takes us from analysis of an object 'context-free', through the comparison of that object to perceived like-objects and so an increase in context sensitivity, to the formal listing of all of the relationships of the object and all objects like it, with both the local (particular) and non-local (general) contexts. This final step leads to an expression in the form of a theory, or hypothesis, or story or even something like a symbol or metaphor or even a gene.
Feedback then acts to refine the expression or else to demonstrate the expression to be illusion. This feedback process increases sensitivity to contextual considerations since the aim is to blend object and context into an integrated whole.
In the context of the human mind, these expressions in the form of mental states can show us elements of a particular expression that are manifest in the other expressions that use the same object or set of objects.
In the article we discuss the following mindsets that do seem to share the same object 'space' where the properties of that object space are listed in the text:
As a result of neurological development, from reptiles upto humans, a set of biases have emerged that act to filter all data into two fundamental categories, that of objects and that of relationships. These distinctions are usually referred to in neurological texts as the 'what' (object) and the 'where' (relationship).
In humans these biases have been refined enough such that they are manifest in the asymmetry of the left and right hemispheres of the neocortex, the top 'layer' of the brain.
In a detailed review of current neurological, psychological, and psychiatric research we have been able to clearly define particular behavioural characteristics, properties and methods, of the left hemisphere. By uncovering these characteristics we are able to list a number of mind-states that all share the same context, what could be called left brained thinking.
It must be noted that the emphasis on 'left' and 'right' are not absolutes but more averages and that the emphasis on one side over the other does NOT imply the other is non functional. What we seem to see is the intersection or union of left and right to create a 'behaviour' that we can call 'mind'. This behaviour is biased such that left or right sets the general context within which finer left/right distinctions are made; thus in data processing at any one moment in time, one hemisphere or the other takes on a context-setting role that is then refined through data processing based on left/right oscillations.
The left/right distinctions are actually poles of a continuum that covers various entanglements of left/right characteristics that can serve as context-setting states, but even these states are still 'coloured' by the fundamental left/right characteristics.
What follows is a detailing of the left or object oriented biases. Note that an emphasise to left hemisphere is not absolute, it is ued here to keep things simple and to bring-out the general patterns. Some individuals have their object processing more right than left and others have more entangled format; the left/right distinctions reflect more threads than whole neurological structures -- the structures are patterns that emerge from the weaving of the threads.
.The noticing of the object biased thread in our neurology comes from a variety of sources and we here list a number of quotes that when put together seem to emphasise the object nature as being a fundamental in thinking.
From studies in neurology and sensory processing in general, the object hemisphere is biased to single context processing (the one) and the relationships hemisphere is biased to multi-context processing (the many). However, in early years of development, the failure of one hemisphere (e.g. one is surgical removed) leads to the other being able to process both types of data, thus there is an emphasis on the hemisphere taking-on biases rather than absolutes but these biases become 'set' in latter life, probably following the neuron culling that seems to occur around age 10-12.
Recent work in neurology reinforces the neocortical asymmetries where we find that, in general:
"...despite the fact that the left hemisphere is significantly different in function from the right, there appears to be no structural or chemical constituent that is present one hemisphere but not in the other...This leaves quantitative differences as the only difference between areas present in both hemispheres...it is .. likely that quantitative differences lead to qualitative differences by permitting the arrival at thresholds and emergent properties." [Galaburda 1995]
Analysis of sensory preferences show that "...visual processing proceeds from the global to the local level..[and that] meta-analysis [supports] the LH-local/RH-global distinction, but the effect sizes from individual studies were quite variable." [Brown & Kosslyn 1995]
In their paper, Brown and Kosslyn conclude:
"...the hemispheres differ in their predilections for certain types of processing. Moreover, [experiment] results suggest that these differences occur because the subjects are led to attend to different characteristics of the stimuli." [Brown & Kosslyn 1995]
Hellige, quoting other sources, states:
"...evidence..suggests the right hemisphere is superior to the left for the processing of global levels whereas the left hemisphere is superior to the right for the processing of local levels..[and]...[experimental] results suggests that the right hemisphere is necessary for the normal processing of global aspects of visual patterns, whereas the left hemisphere is necessary for normal processing of the local aspects of those same patterns." [ Hellige 1995].
Other research areas dealing with the audition system show the same distinctions at work where the left is more concentrated single context, tonic, analysis compared to the right that is biased to more harmonics analysis and this fact suggests an overall abstract processing ability of single-context, object biased left and the multi-context, relational biased right.
The emphasis on quantity leading to quality is seen where left and right hemisphere sensitivities are the same ".. when computational demands are minimal..[and that]...any hemispheric differences related to spatial frequency result from processing beyond the sensory level.." [Hellige 1995].
Hellige goes on:
"Kosslyn et al suggest that the left hemisphere is biased in favour of information from visual channels with small, nonoverlapping [my emphasis] visual fields, whereas the right hemisphere is biased in favour of information from visual channels with large, overlapping [my emphasis] visual fields. Consistent with this possibility, they cite Livingstone as having suggested that magnocellular ganglia (which have relatively large, overlapping receptive fields) project preferentially to the right hemisphere." {Hellige 1995]
My emphasis is that the nonoverlapping bias is a bias to objects, to bound forms and I suggest that this is linked to the serial-biases linking of memories by the hippocampus that works in 200ms 'frames' and so 'forces' the presence of a boundary. The overlapping emphasis stresses pattern detection processes in trying to blend-in/stick-out from the context, the background.
Data from psychological research, when combined with the above gives rise to a general model of neo-cortex function, and so thinking in general, of an emphasis for objects in the left and relationships in the right. These are of course biases in that anterior section of both hemispheres show 'interdigitation' where areas are linked to both as if 'woven' into a pattern. If we view the brain as a whole so we seem to see complexity at work in that there are base, general, patterns in older sections that become refined and more 'mixed' in the last areas to develop, the anterior parts of the brain (e.g.) :
left H --------right H
LRLRLR - LRLRLR (anterior links)
LLLRRR - LLLRRR
LLLLLL - RRRRRR (posterior links)
This model means that there are biases in each hemisphere traceable to more 'gross', older areas and these influence the refined weavings in the more refined newer areas. Thu, if we could remove the brain from its container so we have what looks like a tree, with rigid trunk and flexible branches and leaves.
In [Lewis & Diamond 1995] there is strong evidence that the LH/RH differences are linked to sex hormone levels present before and after birth and so a developed bias in processing preferences can be seen, and this link to hormones determining further biases is found in other research. There is the implication that without education, and so the refinement of mental processes, in the majority of cases the 'male' takes on a more LH approach and the 'female' takes on a more RH approach; the male is more object oriented and the female more relationships oriented.
Education 'mixes' these distinctions to a degree where mental states need not correlate totally with gender states and it is more the integration of these biases that lead to a 'whole' individual where awareness of all possible states allows for a higher degree of flexibility, the individual has a rich choice of behaviours to use in any context.
The above implies that tonal language - speech, where words are almost self-contained, object-like - is a left hemisphere function, but we know that the brain oscillates as it processes data, with one hemisphere taking the lead. Thus any form of serial or syntactic data (and so a KNOWN pattern) leads to a LH control of processing, but the RH contributes when multi-context processing is required. This sharing of tasks is applicable to any parallel, context-sensitive relational data where the RH takes the lead and the LH contributes when single-context processing is required. (Syntax is more of a LH task, whereas semantics is more of a RH task but both hemispheres can handle both tasks; it is all a matter of refinement. (e.g. see Munte et al 1993))
(for regional Cerebral Blood Flow (rCBF) etc see Posner & Raichle 1994; Lassen et al 1990. The controller of this oscillation seems to be the attention system combined with circadian rhythms).
Objects thus come in two forms - those acquired 'as one' and those acquired through the accumulation of aspects (the many).
Aspects, relationships, have three basic forms, static, dynamic, and removable. The latter are called parts and can be treated as wholes but at a different level of analysis; parts are wholes but in a relationship to a greater whole. This introduces the concept of objects having hierarchical structure.
Considering the above, we here state that that which is not interpreted as an object is interpreted as a relationship.
Developmental studies suggest that the brain of the infant is a raw but sensory-integrated whole. Exposure to the environment leads to degrees of sensory differentiation and through education the refinement of the senses and the development of abstract metaphors to deal with objects and relationships. The degree of sensory differentiation seems to be controlled by the immediate culture's main method of communication. (see Stein & Meradith 1993; Tsunoda 1979; Endo et al 1981; Lorcu 1990)
One of the metaphors created for object/relationships analysis is Science, and there is the suggestion that much of the success of hard Science is based on a wave-analysis approach abstracted from our sensory systems with Science's basic symbolism of objects and relationships being captured by the metaphor we call Mathematics. From this it becomes obvious that Science is strongly aspect-oriented as it endeavors to analize an object in detail, and the high level of precision required for this task is analogous to the precise triangulation system we use for identification using our audition system. (e.g. see Levarie 1980; McAdams & Bigand 1993)
In the mind, when we explicitly attend to an object the object is detected as something with substance. Thus, in Physics, the placing of a detector close to a hole through which an electron is supposed to pass will detect exactly that - an apparently solid object passing through the hole.
The moment we try to observe statistically we move from a narrow angle of concentration (particular/local) to a wide diffuse angle (mentally we go from a 'what is' state to a 'what could be'/'where' state - the general/non-local). This act changes the level of analysis from that of a whole to the analysis of many wholes that are now aspects of a greater whole - that of the group and the period of observation and so a strongly relational emphasis; this fact is often missed, and thus the apparent whole we were detecting is now aspectual and appears to have 'wave' characteristics. Thus all information is more in aspectual form (harmonics) rather than in whole form.
Again looking at Physics, the accumulation of data on a photographic plate beyond the storing of the first bit of information (the first electron - whole object) leads to an aspectual mapping (wave harmonics). In Psychology, the formation of typologies (and thus moving beyond the individual) also leads to aspectual mapping in the context of a greater whole - the Society.
In an aspect of Physics, quantum mechanics, the use of down-converters in light-based experiments is intended to take a whole and try to 'cut' it (thus a photon of energy X is 'down-converted' to become two photons of energy X/2) But what you get out of it are the aspectual characteristics - waves and their interferences within the initial context of the pre-converted single photon (whole). (For the EPR experiment, note the emphasis on correlation, where the two start as one(whole) and are then split).
This is also the case in single-slit, double-slit, and polarization experiments. The moment you try to cut a whole you drop an analytical level. If you insist on treating this level as within the context of the whole than all you will perceive is aspectual information. Only when you also drop the context to the same level do you perceive 'wholes' again. Text and context are tied. To change levels with one without the other leads to aspectual data only since, to the brain, that is what you are after - holding the original context (whole) and then changing textual levels gives you all new information but of an aspectual nature.
The roots of our senses are primarily audition and vision. It is proposed that these have been abstracted at higher levels into relational bias (the sub-tones of audition, the colour of vision - both termed 'harmonics') and whole bias (the octave (audition) and the object (visual)) Thus there is an overall bias to one:many relationships; a relationship that is distinctly hierarchic in form (for hierarchy see Goldberg & Costa 1981; ?? 1993). This suggests a degree of synesthesia (mixing of the senses) exists at abstract levels. (see Stein & Meredith 1993; Goldman-Rakic 1984; Constantine-Paton & Law 1982)
When something is not explicitly observed/heard it becomes an aspect of a higher whole (background). In quantum mechanics all particles etc are aspects of the universe and thus can be treated as if harmonics (aspects) of the octave (whole). As we 'zoom' in so we cross hierarchic boundaries and deal with 'lesser' wholes and their aspects. This is 'fractal' behaviour; it's wholes and their aspects, objects and relationships, all the way down.
Considering the above, and considering the 'fact' that our detection equipment are extensions of our senses, so the above properties are (unconsciously) built-in to the equipment.
Returning to physics, in quantum mechanics the crossing of a boundary is captured by the detection of integer-controlled 'jumps'. Thus in the context of an atom, the electrons are treated as aspects of the whole and thus have specific 'levels' when observed within the overall hierarchic format of the atom (in hierarchy, everything has it's place). Outside of the atom electrons take-on the form of wholes and the energy 'jumps' are not observed. All of these observations are made by our senses or by tools designed to extend them and the integer requirement in frequency finds foundation in the behaviour of our audition system - (the primary cortex of which is 'tuned' to frequency/wavelength processing):
"Most of the information in speech is carried in an acoustic entity called "formant transitions" which are formed principally during the pronunciation of vowels. If this information is presented to the left hemisphere, a consonant is heard. If it is presented to the right, a chirping tone is heard (which is what would be predicted strictly on the basis of the frequency contents). Moreover, if the frequency spectrum is continuously varied, the right hemisphere hears a changing complex tone[all aspects of the one -- dependencies bias], whereas the left hears a constant consonant up to a point at which it abruptly shifts to another consonant [analogous to integer 'jumps' - independent objects]. Without going to far into the complex area of verbal acoustic spectra, it seems clear that the left hemisphere may be treating the auditory stimulus in a manner designed to provide special processing for the information-carrying aspects of speech" (Kent 1981, p218)
This 'old' piece of informatation (I inserted the [] parts) finds extended meaning in the context of wholes and their aspects and how our maps are tied to our senses. It is easy to see how confusion can easily arise in the form of linking properties of the method of analysis with the properties of the object under analysis. Thus the abstraction of the properties of our senses can lead to the making of maps based on 'integer' jumps which we detect, but the tools of detection have that property within them and thus it is not necessarily 'out there' - it could be 'in here'.
When we review visual processing we find the same sorts of patterns in that a Necker cube when first seen is interpreted as a complex line drawing but then precision steps in (object analysis takes over) and we 'see' two cubes with an oscillation, a jump, between one and the other.
Thus the object/relationships distinctions are not just restricted to either vision or audition but to BOTH. The brain seems to have developed an information processing network that is sensory context-free, the data received in filtered into object/relationship distinctions. One we see in this is a process where the relationships biased part of the brain can be mistaken for a wholes emphasis in that the linking of relationship to relationship can create the impression of wholeness. However the *assertion* of wholeness is an OBJECT oriented concept; in the relationships world we draw patterns by the pen never leaving the surface, there are no breaks, all is connected and so there never can be an explicit assertion of wholeness.
Paul MacLean's work on the development architecture of the brain brings out the object, aka SELF, oriented approach as being one of the fundamentals. If we look at the territorial processing of reptiles we seem to witness the emergence of a syntax- oriented 'feeling' that can lead to a the perception of an object mentality. This object processing is seen in the use of waypoint mapping we find in the hippocampus where the mine/not mine dichotomy is applied to territorial markings and so territory is "from A to B to C to D" etc.
These distinctions of objects and relationships are further supported by the work of Ivry and Robertson [1998] "The Two Sides of Perception".
When we sum all of the data we get a neurological structure that is object oriented at one end and relationships oriented at the orther.
When we include psychological and psychiatric research we can make a list of object oriented characteristics and they are:
Object oriented and so tend to encapsulate.
Fundamentalist in that an object is reducable to a point.
This pointedness brings out an emphasis on precision and so 'correctness'. From this comes the use of dichotomies in an oppositional sense of A/~A, 'us' vs 'them'.
The seeking/assertion of correctness links to the concept of establishing clarity and a sense of identity that is 'forever'.
The object emphasis leads to the ignoring or even denial of something 'in-between' objects. Thus there is a 'jumpyness' in relational considerations, the middle is excluded which of course is a prime axiom of formal logic.
This jumpyness can lead to the acceptence of the seemingly miraculous/magical and exposure to being delusional where relational concepts are not seen or else deemed as illusions. Since the relational emphasis is strongly social so the denial of relationships can be met with derrision from the more socially biased.
Since the 'space in-between' is ignored (if even recognised) and this space is also linked to the concept of context (background) so there is a degree of external context insensitivity; any context at all is derived internally and then projected but this projection does not make the text/context distinction. In the single context world of object thinking 'all is one'.
From this rejection of context emerges the concept of negation in that what is not 'the object' is thus seen as negative.
Object oriented leads to an assertion of a perspective that is centred in the object and so in humans a more SELF oriented perspective which can be extended to encapsulate others of 'likemind' such that the group becomes 'one' with the same SELF emphasis. (e.g. 'us' vs 'them' etc)
What is noteworthy is that an object can appear 'out of nowhere' (or to seem so -- this links to the 'magic' property of object thinking) or an object can come out of the summing of relationships. The summing process leads to the forming of a boundary where 'suddenly' from what were relationships there emerges an object. This object is not necessarly something tangable, an hypothesis/theory is an object where the summing of relationships is then named.
This connects objects with the concept of symbol making and the interpretations of metaphors literally.
The properties and methods of object thinking are expressed when thinking and a context are combined to create an expression. Thus the following mental states all share the object thinking 'space':
The child mind
The psychotic mind
The fundamentalist mind
The idiot-savant mind
The autistic mind
The genius mind
The logico-mathematics mind
We here detail these thinking/context states: