Copyright © 2001 C.J. Lofting
ABSTRACT
In the process of making maps of reality we recruit basic neurocognitive patterns, abstract them, and use them as sources of analogy/metaphor in creating our maps. The ease in which we can do this allows for these analogies and metaphors to transform into literal associations - maps become territories.
The premise here is that:
(1) Given the vision/audition biases in the Brain (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html
)and
(2) the emergence of the Law of the Excluded Middle from the visual system's 'need' to clearly identify A from
NOT A and so
(3) the Brain deals with complex patterns by attempting to break them down to EITHER/OR concepts then
(4)irreducable patterns are delt with by 'best fit' where the brain oscillates between the elements that make-up
the pattern. Thus we 'see' A then NOT A then A then NOT A etc
(5) This oscillation process, so useful in analysis of complex patterns and dealing with paradox has been recruited
by the Mind in its attempts to map reality.
As mentioned elsewhere, the recruitment of a local, mindless, process that deals with paradox processing, to a
level of refined information processing shows energy conservation where a local 'habit' has been recruited and
generalised to a degree such that when Mind X says A and Mind Y says NOT A then the instinctive response by both
Minds is to argue, oscillate, manifesting the mindless A/NOT A oscillations being applied to mindful A/NOT A oscillations
as we seek a 'collapse' to EITHER A or NOT A.
This oscillation process is no longer limited to seconds nore limited to a single member of the species but is
generalised to all members of the species and can function over hours, decades, centuries etc etc where ANY assertion
of A and NOT A at the same time will immediately lead to a 'drive' to solve the 'paradox'. This is instinctive
and so can be 'mindless' unless controlled. (the mindless element is tied to identity formation in that assertion
of A is tied-in with the identity of the asserter such that assertions of NOT A by someonelese can be interpreted
as a threat to identity).
Thus the level of Mind has recruited existing mindless methodologies to aid in reality mapping. These methodologies
reflect the Brain's refinement of sensory system developments, especially the adaption of the neurology to LIGHT
as a 'fundamental'.
The A/NOT A oscillations reflect three conditions:
(a) A true, local, sensory paradox. These are usually visual or auditory with the most known examples being visual
- e.g. the Necker Cube etc. (also see examples as links in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html
)
(b) An error in categorisations where given a set of categories we attempt to filter all input through that set.
A lack in differentiation will create circumstances where complex data is forced through the filter such that one
or more categories will reflect 'paradox' in that clear determination of the content is not possible and so the
category reflects uncertainty. This uncertainty is reflected in oscillations and reference to context-dependencies
etc where context determines the 'certain' nature of the category. For example, if I have the notions of static
and dynamic then a category in which the notions share the same space will reflect one OR the other given a context.
In these circumstances the categories need to be reviewed and expanded (but see (c)) to, for example, differentiate
static category from dynamic category. This 'mistake' in category creation reflects 'derived' irreducability.
(c) A true complex pattern has been identified that is outside of the scope of the sensory systems of the species
(and this includes the extention of those senses in the form of technology). In this case, no matter how many categories
are created to remove the oscillations the oscillations do not stop. This state reflects 'true' irreducability.
It is different to (a) in that (a) is mindless and local whereas here there is possibility of 'something'.
We can represent the notion of oscillations with a graph showing A as the Y-axis and NOT A as the X-axis. A complex
pattern, 'reality', is represented by a vector cutting the 2D plane forty-five degrees from the origin (IOW the
diagonal). Perception is where this vector jumps to map onto the X-axis (and so a NOT-A state is perceived) or
the Y-axis (and so an A state is perceived). This graph reflects the visual system's demand for EITHER/OR distinctions
as a process of object processing.
Paradox comes when the vector oscillates across A and NOT A but prior to that is the extraction, the unfolding
of the A/~A distinctions that are not paradoxical but reflect stimulus-response processes. The complexity of the
universe is encoded in the diagonal, the state vector and our species communications system utilises this process
of encoding/decoding by step-up/step-down processing - we encode the 'whole' S/R event into a complex form just
as we decode it from that complex form.
There is the implication in all of this that this Brain level paradox-solving process has led to its recruitment
to transmit/receive data where mediation/representation processes (symbol and habit formations - see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/peirce.html
) encode stimulus/response events (where stimulus = A and response = NOT A) into complex patterns in the form of
words, symbolic images etc that when transmitted and received by another Brain (or even ones own!) are 'collapsed'
into the A/NOT A distinctions. Misunderstandings or else inability to differentiate are reflected in confusion
where out pops the oscillations as we try to decode the data. In some circumstances the 'collapse' needs the 'correct'
context in which to express A or NOT A, in others there will be no collapse since the pattern is 'outside' of the
species ability to detect.
The simple A/NOT-A graph reflects Brainless A/NOT-A processing and it has been recruited by the Mind and is strongly
utilisised in one of the Mind's maps of reality, quantum mechanics, where this simple graph has been relabelled
the State Vector and all abstract notions of state vectors, vector summing, superpositions, and the wave 'collapse'
etc etc reflect Mind abstracting a Brain behaviour to attempt to map reality; IOW the notion of particle/NOT-particle
(aka wave), local/non-local etc all reflect abstractions rooted in the 'concrete' paradox processing of the Brain.
One consequence of Mind emerging from Brain, and therefore reflecting Transcendence, is that transcendence reflects
abstraction and that allows for 'new' experiences/concepts that are encapsulated at the Mind level as X but when
we try to go 'backwards', to return to the Brain level A/~A we get oscillations. This 'irreducablity' reflects
the concept where abstractions can serve as concrete foundations for the abstracted level. In other words Mind
concepts can be seen to 'lack' precise identification at Brain levels and as such the realm of Mind can be interpreted
as a 'base' level, seemingly 'free' of Brain, independent. (Multiple Personalities etc can develop giving us many
Minds in the one Brain) This 'illusion' is where the full set of patterns we see in the Brain (as in the A/NOT-A
relationships) have been recruited and abstracted to a level where we cannot explicitly 'see' the Brain patterns
in the Mind patterns (see the above link to 'light.html' with the section that identifies Brain patterns in Mind
etc)
The sense of 'meaning' derived at the Mind level, no matter how abstract, is still rooted in Brain patterns, static
or dynamic, and as such can elicit senses of 'truth' since the same patterns have been abstracted but as such retain
the Brain-level 'objects & relationships' identifications. IOW the Mind reflects the step-up process that has
stayed 'up' to create its own 'universe' but still using 'stock' methods i.e. A/NOT-A oscillations etc in communications.
In the Mind, the extremely high degree of precision required by quantum mechanics will distort text-context relationships
where the localisation emphasis on the 'dot' is 'mindlessly' compensated-for by the increasing universality in
the nature of the context; this text-context 'dance' is part of the Brain's way of processing text-context data
where focusing on the text forces a single context perspective as we go for precise details but the more precise
you get so the more dependent you are on universal constants and they 'exist' in the context so ultimatly any focus
on the 'dot' will lead to the emergence of the continuum, not necessarily as 'fact' but more a property of function.
Since the text-context relationship reflects A/NOT A processing so the patterns mentioned above will emerge under
certain circumstances in the Mind but without explicit grounding of these patterns in mindless Brain paradox-processing
and as such can in themselves be interpreted as 'paradoxical'.
In the human brain, and to lesser degrees in all other species utilising neurons to communicate, there is the distinction
between analytical and dialectical thinking. The analytical is more 'dot' precise, more self-referencing, than
the dialectical but the dialectical is closer to 'out there'. As such the oscillations of the senses between A
and NOT-A is repeated all the way up to the neocortex of the Brain and 'out' into the collective. At the neocortical
level we enter the realm of Mind where the oscillations across the hemispheres act to 'step-up' to the Mind level.
By identifying LIGHT and later SOUND as dominating our information processing so we identify the root contexts,
the base level, on which all of our maps depend. This is especially so in that to get precise details on
concepts we use self-reference and as such will encode in all our abstractions basic, mindless, properties and
methods of these senses. Not realising this can lead to 'delusions' in interpretations of reality; be wary.