Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2000 11:18
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> ELEPHANT TO CHRIS RE REFERENCES TO HIGHLY EVOLVED BIOLOGISTS:
>
>
> CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> >>>> (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.
>
> RICHARD ASKED:
> >>> Which studies is this taken from?
>
> ELEPHANT TRUMPETED:
> >> There's Millions of them to choose from. They are the same ones that
> show
> >> how consciouness has evolved to it's highest form in the lesser-crested
> >> biologist.
>
> CHRIS THEN WROTE:
> > :-) yes there are a lot! however here is a list of useful refs
> that cover
> > the ONE:MANY, WHAT/WHERE, OBJECT/RELATIONSHIPS expressions in
> scales from
> > neuron to neural groups to the 'top' of the list, the
> neocortex... first set
> > of refs favour the single frequency detection of the more
> 'object' side -
> > that that favours 'what' and so when particularised we get WHO
> and WHICH..
> > all 'dot' or 'point' oriented terms...
>
> ELEPHANT:
> ~:---() Could please explain the quote-marks here around 'object'? An
> object is an object. And what has frequency got to do with this, if you
> please?
>
In the analysis of behaviours we use different contexts as our source for
interpretations. For example those on the chaos psych list favour
complexity/chaos theory etc and so can interprete an "object" as being
nothing more than a strange attractor, there is no 'concrete' point but more
a 'well,' formed out of the dynamics of interaction. This is like the
concept of a vortex atom circa turn of the 20th century where atoms were
'just' vortices ... a concept soon changed when the atom was split.
>From the point of view of the interpretation of data etc as frequency
analysis so part of the brain is tied to processing a single frequency and
this frequency becomes the transporter of 'meaning'; as we find in FM radio
:-)
If you use a holographic mode of interpretation then this single frequency
is associated with the concept of a reference beam that when 'shone' on a
piece of holographic film 'brings out' whatever is encoded in that film.
Note that it brings out 'something' and so forces our attention to focus and
in doing so automatically emphasise ONE (the foreground, the thing under
notice) and the MANY (the background, 'everything else').
If you use the linguistics mode of interpretation then that part of the
brain that deals with discrete processing, expression of words etc is linked
to the concept of an 'object'.
IF you consider the two sections of my earlier post re necker cubes and
complex sounds, so one part of the brain is linked to processing
particulars, known THINGS whereas the other favours identifying
relationships which is also used to help identify UNKNOWN things (but only
implicitly, the final determiner is the object side).
As for frequency, all data is processed through the receiving of data via
different sensory systems and the identification and response to that data.
This is done through the only system we have that can process all sensory
data regardless of the sense, and that is emotions.
When you study the brain so you discover that the particulars side
establishes ONE context that becomes the frame for interpretation -- as we
find in music with a KEY. The generals side processes harmonics within the
context set by the particular side.
Overall the emphasis is on discrete/particular/known/NAMED vs
continuous/general/unknown/unnamed. The former takes on the label of
"objects" and the latter of "relationships" this because there is a
transformation process going on where "relationships" can be summed to
create an "object" but CONTEXT will identify the 'hardness' of that object.
(there is also the reverse process)
For example, the set of all concepts includes itself but the set of all dogs
does not. In the former there is an emphasis that allows a sharing of the
same space, in the later there is definitly NO sharing of space.
What are IDENTIFIABLE as BOTH/AND states are states where DIFFERENT
interpretations can share the same space prior to the act of interpretation
(aka wave collapse).
EITHER/OR states do not allow for superpositions, they have a discreteness,
a sense of self-containment that can be interpreted as "Object-ness".
My particular point above, in that I put quotes around the term 'object' was
in the context of discussing FREQUENCIES in a context of OBJECTS. IOW we
TALK about a single frequency, e.g. a KEY as if it is something I can touch;
it isnt, but it is something I can encapsulate, particularise, and in doing
so the MANNER in which I discuss this 'thing' will contain expressions that
are NOT used when I am talking in a relational way.
Our brains oscillate left-right-left-right etc and this process forces the
distinctions of 'objects' and 'relationships'. (recall my comments re
oscillations and breaking down BOTH/AND states into EITHER/OR) This
oscillation is well documented over a number of years such that we can, IN
GENERAL, identify objects and relationships but IN PARTICULAR we have to
recognise that the METHOD of interpretation will 'mix' these distinctions...
> CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> > REFs:
> >
> > Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C., (1998)"The Two Sides of Perception" MITP
> >
> > STRONG evidence for a left being high pass filter -- the
> fundamental -- vs
> > right being low pass -- harmonics and so interference patterns. (left is
> > more 'object' right is more 'wave'). The left sets the KEY
> (Single context)
> > within which harmonics 'play'.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> This appears to be written in code. What is a 'filter' when it's at home?
> Re "harmonics and so interference patterns" - I normally expect a verb...
> couldn't you indulge me just this once? It's just that this is the way I
> (am evolved to) understand things.
>
A filter is a method whereby only certain types of data are let through to
conscious processing. Thus our unconscious and conscious are influenced in
their reflections by the structure of the data and that data is structured
via our neurology and sensory systems into 'object' and 'relationship'
distinctions or their more complex forms. (vision favours the fovea(details,
ONE)/parafovea(approximates, the MANY))
At the sensory level the range of input permissable for our vision and
audition act as filters, thus we do not have X-ray vision etc :-)
A low pass filter lets in AM data, low frequency. Low frequency data is
associated with harmonics of the primary harmonic (e.g. the KEY). There are
many harmonics that can combine to form constructive and destructive
patterns - they interfere with each other.
> CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> > For recent work on the *neuron* as a frequencies detector see
> in particular
> >
> > Hutcheon,B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) "Resonance, oscillation and
> the intrinsic
> > frequency preferences of neurons" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222
> >
> > At the neuron level, axon is more pulse; dendrites more wave.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> ~;. - <::> ....?
>
:-) in the neuron the axon works by sending PULSES of data down it that then
are passed on to other neurons. In the neuron the dendrites work by
receiving data as a flow, creating a WAVE of information that at the cell
body (soma) is converted into pulses.
Pulsed data is high frequency, wide bandwidth (and so the clarity of FM
radio) but SHORT range. The waves at the dendrites are (AM bias) lower
frequencies, narrower bandwidths but LONG range.
This process of moving from AM to FM at the neural level is also done at the
neocortical level where the left hemisphere, the one concerned with clear
identification, is like an axon, FM biased, whereas the right hemisphere,
the one concerned with harmonics processing, pattern recognition etc, is
like the MANY dendrites, AM biased.
It is not as rigid as this suggests, at these abstract levels are feedback
loops etc that allow for some reversals of flow etc
> CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> > For a 'middle' position see:
> >
> > Tallon-Baudry, C., & Bertrand, O., (1999)"Oscillatory gamma activity in
> > humans and its role in object representation" Trends Cognit.
> Sci. (1999) 3,
> > 151-161
> >
> > As well as:
> >
> > Zatorre RJ, Mondor TA, Evans AC "Auditory attention to space
> and frequency
> > activates similar cerebral systems." IN Neuroimage 1999
> Nov;10(5):544-54.
> >
> > And:
> >
> > Pardo PJ, Makela JP, Sams M "Hemispheric differences in processing tone
> > frequency and amplitude modulations" IN : Neuroreport 1999 Sep
> > 29;10(14):3081-6
> >
> > For a good detailed summary (!) on cell communications etc see
> >
> > Loewenstein, W.R., (1999) "The Touchstone of Life" Penguin Books.
> >
> > For a summary on complexity, emergence and creation of memory
> systems from
> > 'simple' neural connections see
> >
> > Holland, J.H., (1999)"Emergence" OUP.
>
>
> ELEPHANT:
> There's so much to learn, so little time. Er, can we skip that
> bit though,
> and cut straight to an explanation of how a study of guey stuff
> can tell us
> anything about the subject-object distinction? I'd like to be told why it
> might be worth my while reading through this list, if that's OK.
> Is it OK?
>
The process of distinction making involves the indication of 'something', we
notice a pattern etc and wish to communicate it. This process is a process
of particularisation where in the MANY we identify a ONE, we draw this ONE
out, exagerate it, play with it -- all the things we do in music etc.
That ONE can then become the 'universe of discourse' and we cut it using
dichotomisation. This method however is not 1:1 but 1:many. Thus the
distinction of subject/NOT subject is refined where NOT subject is itself
particularised into the term 'object' and the dichotomy moves from a slighly
ambiguous 1:many type to a 1:1 type.
These processes are identifiable at the neurological level such that
identifying clearly the METHOD we use in analysis can help in making our
identifications 'clear'. (I use quotes here since clear to you may not be
clear to me :-))
This process of distinction making has some interesting properties,
properties that we can confuse with the thing under analysis.
For example, there is the distinction of expression/behind_expression and
this is often confused in that the distinction of Free-Will/Determinism is
'misleading' since Free-Will deals with EXPRESSION but Determinism deals
with what is BEHIND expression; thus the elements of the dichotomy are not
on an even level, they are not 'true' 1:1 in relation. The
Free-Will/Determinism dichotomy is a 1:many type of dichotomy showing it to
be linked to the concept of LOCAL vs NON-LOCAL IOW Free-Will is a LOCAL
concept, Determinism a NON-LOCAL concept.
IOW what you as an individual does locally is up to you (free will) but the
SUM of all of these 'local' interactions can lead to flocking behaviour
where interference patterns (linked to RULES BEHIND expressions) can lead to
non-local events, as in the behaviour of birds where each bird does their
'local' thing and the flock is born...
These non-local events are tied to the concept of the GENERAL and are linked
to RELATIONAL processes. Which means there are interference patterns that
favour some outcomes over others regardless of what you try to do..
Pirsig touches on the Free-Will/Determinism dichotomy but I think misses the
point...
>
> CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> > The neurochemistry favours the object(ONE)/relationships(MANY)
> distinctions
> > as wellm encoded in the affects of the
> dopamine/serotonin/acetylcholine and
> > the neuropeptids on behaviour...
>
> ELEPHANT:
> As I understand it, the "well encoded" expression is a neat bit of evasive
> language which allows for the possibility that things are the other way
> around: ie that the metaphysical distinction between object - subject is
> something which the guey stuff has come to exhibit ("encode"). All very
> interesting for students of guey stuff, but besides the point as
> far as the
> metaphysics is concerned. I could perhaps be persuaded that the
> papers you
> cite are worth reading for an insight into the metaphysics, but
> I won't be
> unless you deploy the occasional sentence, and connect them into an
> argument. When an argument gets hinted at, it is that changes in the guey
> stuff affect behaviour. This seems to invoke the old rationalist input-
> output model of psychology which MOQ-like pragmatists rejected years ago
> (see John Dewey, 'the reflex arc concept in psychology', the psychological
> reveiw, 1896, and in all the good collections on pragmatism).
>
> Yours still blinded by the brighter lights of science,
>
:-) I just look at the neurology/psychology. I ask 'what is BEHIND all of
this expression? what is the STRUCTURE involved, if any?
WE can burn all books prior to 70s or even the 80s other than our books on
neurosciences and psychology work and we would develop 'new' works that
would be 'like' the old ones but more up to date, thus removing the
influences of history. Too much history can cause a lot of problems as can
too little. We are at a time where discernment is needed.
By this I mean that in Science, due to the increase in research data over
the last 30 years,
the ideas, conjectures etc of 50 years plus are 'dead'. They can act to
confuse. My criticism of Freud, Popper, Peirce is based on their LACK in
precision in their analysis such that their favouring trichotomies etc
lacked understanding of bifurcation processes etc. To continue to reference
their work as a primary source means you continue to use data lacking in
precision.
We need to re-evaluate where we are. Evolution is blind and being blind has
no favourites. We can adopt any belief system we wish and if it works 'fine'
but there is no consideration of consequence. Humanity comes along and
develops a consciousness and so an ability to be discerning in evolution --
natural selection becomes conscious selection.
It is here that morality etc comes in in that a battle is developing between
blind forces of evolution and the drive of a conscious species to survive.
That means we have to look very carefully at what neurosciences etc are
telling us rather than stick to works of 'old' which have served us well but
now need 'refinements'.
My own work on dichotomisation emphasises HOW people find 'meaning' in
esoteric texts despite what Science says. My argument has been that these
texts, as well as Science, are metaphors for describing object/relationship
distinctions but at LOCAL levels. The price for this is the interpreting of
these metaphors literally...
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