Hi Chris,
CHRIS
In the context of establishing any particular, e.g. MOQ, I think the
following may be of interest, in particular the method of BOTH/AND to
EITHER/OR conversions....
CHRIS
(1) There is enough evidence around to validate the conjecture that in the
human brain, and in the brains of other lifeforms, the distinction is made
of the particular and the general and from this emerges the concepts of
objects and relationships.
GLENN
Perhaps, but let's not forget the temporal aspects here. The concepts
derived by the brain concerning the 'what' and the 'where' probably do
not happen concurrently, but in a hierarchical/temporal process whereby
the 'left' provides inputs to the 'right' to solve the binding problem.
I have a little trouble believing that the general part of the brain has
much to say about X at least in the early going (on the order of the first
few nanoseconds) of perception processing.
(2) The process of particularisation emphasises EITHER/OR processing and the
clear, precise, identification of X forces the concept of ~X, where X is
'the one' and ~X is 'everything else' aka 'the many'.
So this is the fundamental bifurcation. We're assuming that the
'particular' brain module also identifies ~X as it did X. How does the
brain get a "clear, precise identification" of any object? Do you think
it's from a direct experience with DQ?
(3) The process of generalisation forces the inclusion of BOTH/AND concepts
where within the general are both concepts of a particular as well as its
opposite and due to the 'illogic' of these appearing 'at the same time'
forces the general to emphasis probabilites, what COULD be rather than what
IS.
GLENN
An interesting idea. The tension causing the 'illogic' is responsible not
only for the statistical slant of the mind but perhaps more importantly
the gross driving force behind creativity, the search for universal laws
and the general loopiness characteristic of people (some more than
others).
CHRIS
(4) The brain demonstrates its inability to explicitly process BOTH/AND
states in that it converts BOTH/ANDness into EITHER/OR oscillations. The
distinction here is that the states are qualitatively identical in precision
such that we cannot identify them in the same 'space' through a ranged
difference emphasis; the states are rigid opposites. This includes a
temporal emphasis that forces time to have a begin/end when expressed
(EITHER/OR) but allows for a superposition to exist (BOTH/AND) outside of
the explicit expression.
GLENN
You're postulating here that the conversion to oscillations gives us our
subjective sense of time's arrow, and that a requirement for this sense is a
digital expression, not a wave/analog one. This could also explain why
a person under the influence of LSD experiences a subjective sense of time
dilation. Perhaps the drug suppresses conversion to EITHER/OR oscillations
and the subject is left in a state of temporal superposition.
CHRIS
(5) There seems to be an emphasis where the particulars-biased part of the
brain favours objects and quantitative precision, and so the KNOWN, whereas
the generals-biased part of the brain favours relational concepts -- the
space in-between objects - and a more qualitative precision that includes
negation -- aka the UNKNOWN. These distinctions favour the categorisation of
objects and the known with text/foreground/positive, and the categorisation
of relationships and the unknown with context/background/negative. (even a
positive relationship is a form of constraint).
GLENN
Just a note. The constraint due to "positive relationship" is probably not
strong enough to cause a neuropsychopathology, as negative ones probably
would.
<snip>
CHRIS
(8) These concrete sensory-based processes seem to be abstracted into such
areas as descriptions of emotional states which can manifest BOTH/AND forms
where we combine love and hate into the one space. The inability to express
this state is found when we describe it as being in a love/hate
relationship, an oscillation, the same process of description used in the
above sensory-level descriptions.
GLENN
You should clarify that the EITHER/OR oscillations converted from the
BOTH/AND states are not on the same level as the fundamental
dichotomisation of X/~X. It's a cycle, possibly utilizing something like
feedback or recursion.
CHRIS
(9) From the single neuron level we see this conversion from general to
particular, from BOTH/AND to EITHER/OR, from what COULD be to what IS,
through the tranformation of data passing through the dendrites (AM bias,
variable wave amplitudes, continuous) to pulses (FM bias, fixed amplitude,
discrete) passing along the axon.
(10) Change scales and we find neural nets, using synchronisation, utilise
the same methods. Zoom-up to the neocortex and we see the SAME patterns in
the left/right hemispheres of the brain. Drop a level or so and we see the
SAME patterns in the lobes within each hemisphere. Overall there is a
process of conversion of BOTH/AND into EITHER/OR and the generalisation of
that back into BOTH/AND states.
GLENN
We not only see this in biology, but also in modern physics, where events
predicated by quantum effects are expressible in probabilities (BOTH/AND) until the
wave equation collapses, at which point you have (EITHER/OR). So
maybe you are on to something when you say it applies at different scales
and levels.
<snip>
CHRIS
(17) The conversion process, of BOTH/AND to EITHER/OR and back, is a
property of our brain's structuring, of the brain's bias to
object/relationship distinctions and the emphasis on particular/general --
properties linked to the attention system.
GLENN
So how do all these ideas about brain structure tie into the MOQ? From
where, based on your research and ideas, does quality, value, and
morality emanate?
Glenn
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
