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....
(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.
(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'.
(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.
(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.
(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).
(6) At the visual sensory level we find this difficulty in processing
BOTH/AND states in a context of particularisation with such processing as
perceiving a Necker Cube where the general part of the brain 'sees' a
complex line drawing but the particular part (!) identifies TWO cubes, one
'oscillating' into the other but in a digital fashion, there is no
'morphing' at work but more a precise ABABAB... process (very square wave).
(7) At the auditory sensory level we find this difficulty in processing
BOTH/AND states in a context of particularisation with such processing as a
complex sound where the general part of the brain 'hears' a complex sound
but the particular part identifies a set of consonents, 'jumping' from one
to the next.
(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.
(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.
(11) From a wave approach, the object brain is linked to a single context
processing, like a KEY it sets the particular mode of interpretation of
data. The relationships brain, the more general, contains within it all of
the harmonics associated with the particular KEY as well as a set of rules
as well as those 'forbidden' elements -- these can allow for novel
associations and so creativity.
(12) Our concepts-formation contain within them the above structuring since
the above reflects the METHOD we use as a species to analyse data. Thus from
the context of Molecular Biology we 'see' the mRNA/DNA relationships
reflected in the above where DNA manifests a storage area, a pool of
diffusely distributed parts of a gene that when linked-together through
cut'n'paste methods become a single concentrated strand of mRNA, to become
the expression; thus we 'see' the particular, the concentrated, expressed in
an mRNA strand and the general, the diffuse, expressed in a strand of DNA.
(13) The suggestion here is that a primitive coding system has been retained
and refined in humans such that we can trace our methods of information
processing down to the level of Molecular Biology and beyond -- meaning that
when we analyse the structures of the concepts of fundamental particles,
divided into the concepts of fermions and bosons, so these concepts in
general reflect the same patterns where the fermions are more 'one', more
'object' bias when compared to bosons that are 'massless' and allow for
BOTH/AND states - superpositions, something that the Pauli Exclusion
Principle forbids for fermions.
(14) In relation to bosons, and in particular photons, BOTH/AND states are
converted into oscillations of EITHER/OR states. Which in light is what we
'see', an oscillation of photons manifest as a perception of transverse
waves.
(15) The emphasis of the brain is to achieve communications of ideas through
the use of language, through the use of particularisations of sensory data
into a digital form, the attempt to express BOTH/AND states -- what is
possible at any one moment -- into oscillating EITHER/OR states in the form
of spoken/written words/symbolisms.
(16) Another example of this is in our making of maps by building dimensions
but emphasising that each new dimension must be ORTHOGONAL to the previous.
This emphasis is associated with oscillations and favouring maximising
bandwidth in getting the communication across, thus the particular map with
its particular symbolisms (lexicon) becomes the single context from which we
interpret 'out there' as well as 'in here'.
(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.
(18) It is important to understand that our maps of 'out there' are derived
and associated with our methods of analysis and not understanding the method
can lead to confusion of properties of the method with properties of the
things under analysis.
(For the logic minded I suggest a perusal of Spencer-Brown's indicative
calculus (In his book "Laws of Form") re the conversion of BOTH/AND to
oscillating EITHER/ORs ).
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST