Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Mind and Brain] Brain I/O: By-Passing the Senses Electromagnetically

Expand Messages
  • Glen Sizemore
    ... compared to the neurology of the zebra fish. the metaphysical aspect is in the differences in LABELS derived to refer to the ONE set of qualities - so
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment




      --- On Wed, 10/31/07, chrislofting@... <chrislofting@...> wrote:

      From: chrislofting@... <chrislofting@...>
      Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Brain I/O: By-Passing the Senses Electromagnetically
      To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 9:46 PM







      the source of meaning as FEELINGS stem from the dynamics of the neurology that create classes of meaning where instances of a class are expressed in words/emotions where that expression elicits resonance.

      see http://members. iimetro.com. au/~lofting/ myweb/introIDM. html

      thus the meaning of the 'known' vs the 'unknown' is shared by us with other neuron-dependent life forms such as the tiny zebra fish. The differences are in the degree of differentiation of, establishment of examples of, the meaning and the complexity possible given our neurology as compared to the neurology of the zebra fish.

      the 'metaphysical' aspect is in the differences in LABELS derived to refer to the ONE set of qualities - so many labels that they can make up their own small worlds and appear as if 'seperate' from the neurology. not so.

      If we remove all sensory systems and so all specialist perspectives we are left with what the neurology provides - patterns of differentiating/ integrating as universals where LOCAL CONTEXT customises such - and so the MANY words that represent the one set of qualities. I can derive a good representation of reality through asking vague questions about emotions and all done in a hierarchic format - as such it is the structure of the dichotomy and the hierarchy that elicits meaning regardless of what the words of the dichotomy 'mean'. See comments in http://members. iimetro.com. au/~lofting/ myweb/pcp. html

      Chris
      http://members. iimetro.com. au/~lofting/ myweb/introIDM. html

      GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment (coupled, of course, with our “learning mechanisms”). What you are calling differentiation and integration have been investigated for more than a century, beginning with Pavlov’s work in the late 19th century and are referred to as “discrimination” and “generalization.” These processes are fundamental aspects of Pavlovian and operant conditioning (and habituation/sensitization) and are ubiquitous. What do you know about these processes? What variables determine whether or not two stimuli are responded to as the same or different? That is, what are the variables that determine so-called generalization and post-discrimination gradients? What are the controversies? What are the current mysteries? Can “pure” discriminatory capacities be separated from the equally ubiquitous motivational/emotional variables that drive behavior? What is known about discrimination of “complex stimuli” as in so-called “concept formation” and “categorization”? Perhaps you should spend more time reading actual science than you do spewing inane gibberish. This is good advice for cognitive “scientists” as well, but most practicing cognitive “scientists” occasionally say something important – at least if you are doing experiments one can look past the silly concepts and the lame theories which they underlie. That is not enough to completely save a science (or “science” as in the case of mainstream psychology and the aspects of neurobiology that it has corrupted) but, at least, it renders the endeavor not a total failure.

      Cordially,
      Glen


    • Barron Burrow
      G.Sizemore said to Lofto: GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment (coupled, of course, with our “learning
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        G.Sizemore said to Lofto:

        GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment
        (coupled, of course, with our “learning mechanisms”). What you
        are calling differentiation and integration have been investigated
        for more than a century, beginning with Pavlov's work in the late
        19th century and are referred to as 'discrimination'
        and 'generalization.' >>

        Hi Glen, I'd be fascinated to know whether these last two terms that
        you (and presumably behaviourists) use are synonymous with Gerald
        Edelman's 'categorization' and 'generalisation'? He's basically
        saying that, through implementation of an interplay between this
        latter pair, reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for
        spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.

        It's all set out in his famous book, Neural Darwinism: the Theory of
        Neuronal Group Selection (1989, OUP/Basic Books) [A good summary can
        be found at
        It's possible to download a copy at the following site, though one
        needs to fulfil certain membership criteria --
        http://www.questia.com/library/book/neural-darwinism-the-theory-of-
        neuronal-group-selection-by-gerald-m-edelman.jsp ], but I can't
        recall anyone substantial who disagrees with its thesis, or denies
        that it's a major contribution. Here can be found a good review of
        the book:
        http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1988Science.htm

        And here's what Wiki says:

        "Edelman's theory of "neuronal group selection" contains three major
        parts:
        Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective
        mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during
        development. This creates a diverse primary repertoire by
        differential reproduction.
        Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second
        selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience
        through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic
        connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary
        repertoire by differential amplification.
        Reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allow for spatiotemporal
        continuity in response to real-world interactions...
        Edelman proposes a model of reentrant signaling whereby a
        disjunctive, multimodal sampling of the same stimulus event
        correlated in time leads to self-organizing intelligence. Put another
        way, multiple neuronal groups can be used to sample a given stimuli
        set in parallel and communicate between these disjunctive groups with
        incurred latency."


        [edit] Support for the theory
        It has been suggested that Friedrich Hayek had earlier proposed a
        similar idea in his book The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the
        Foundations of Theoretical Psychology, published in 1952.

        Other leading proponents include Daniel Dennett, William H. Calvin,
        and Linda B. Smith. [end quote]

        Donald Hebb's 1949 Organization of Behavior, asks: "What is the
        nature of categorization, generalization, and memory, and how does
        their interaction mediate the continually changing relationships
        between experience and novelty?" (p. 241). Edelman answers this
        convincingly for infrahuman species, but he also demonstrates in a
        later book, Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind
        (1992, Basic Books/Penguin, how his theory integrates naturally with
        Freud's (psycho-sexual) model of the mind-brain.

        I believe my approach shows how this behaviourist [?] theory of the
        mind-brain can be extended to higher-order consciousness as it
        interacts with that of others' (and also the group, as in the case of
        the ancient Greeks -- the guys who invented democracy, remember?), as
        well as with the cosmos.

        I can't be bothered to waste my time on Lofto; but I would be most
        interested in your views on this.


        Barron







        These processes are fundamental aspects of Pavlovian and operant
        conditioning (and habituation/sensitization) and are ubiquitous. What
        do you know about these processes? What variables determine whether
        or not two stimuli are responded to as the same or different? That
        is, what are the variables that determine so-called generalization
        and post-discrimination gradients? What are the controversies? What
        are the current mysteries? Can “pure” discriminatory capacities
        be separated from the equally ubiquitous motivational/emotional
        variables that drive behavior? What is known about discrimination of
        “complex stimuli” as in so-called “concept formation” and
        “categorization”? Perhaps you should spend more time reading
        actual science than you do spewing inane gibberish. This is good
        advice for cognitive “scientists” as well, but most practicing
        cognitive “scientists” occasionally say something important â€"
        at least if you are doing experiments one can look past the silly
        concepts and the lame theories which they underlie. That is not
        enough to completely save a science (or “science” as in the case
        of mainstream psychology and the aspects of neurobiology that it has
        corrupted) but, at least, it renders the endeavor not a total failure.

        Cordially,
        Glen
      • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
        Hi Glen, ... CL: The focus in IDM is what comes out of *self-referencing* the differentiate/integrate (aka what/where) dichotomy. Past researchers have not
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Glen,

          On Thu Nov 1 4:50 , Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> sent:

          >GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment (coupled, of course, with our “learning mechanisms”). What you are calling differentiation and integration have been investigated for more than a century, beginning with Pavlov’s work in the late 19th century and are referred to as “discrimination” and “generalization.”



          CL: The focus in IDM is what comes out of *self-referencing* the differentiate/integrate (aka what/where) dichotomy. Past researchers have not covered this. The simple act of mapping out the qualiteis derivable from the self-referencing, free of any specialist sensory system, elicits the template of qualities usable as classes of meaing in dealing with any context, any sense or combinations of. Pavlov et al failed to focus on the grounding methodology in the brain - but that is understandable since they had no idea what was going on 'in here' whereas these days we DO have an idea - even if still vague ;-)

          The FACT that our brains use self-referencing is given in the (a) requirement of self-referencing to implement the XOR operator in the neurology and (b) the combination of attention and so encapsulation of 'something' combined with oscillations across the hemispheres when first dealing with that something where this oscillation is equivalent to self-referencing the left/right dichotomy where such reflects the underlying asymmetry of the neurology covering differentiating bias (left) vs integrating bias (right). What is derived in the self-referencing is a set of classes of POSSIBLE meanings and we select one to label the new/complex experience. This is then encoded over time in DIFFERENT parts of the brain as a set of labels.

          The page on sensory paradox (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html ) also brings out the differentiating/integrating differences in the brain and so its asymmetry. If we replace the differentiate/integrate dichotomy with a representation of such in 'bit' form where 1=differentiation and 0=integration we can map out all that is POSSIBLE given the method. IF we do this to just three levels of iteration we have:

          (level 1) 1 / 0 (whole described through differentiating / whole described through integrating)
          (level 2) 11, 10 / 01, 00 (whole/part representations)
          (level 3) 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000 (objects & relationships, whole and aspects)

          These representations cover the qualities forming categorise of meaning as:

          111 - wholeness through differentiating
          110 - static relatedness through differentiating (sharing of space)
          101 - partness through differentiating
          100 - dynamic relatedness through differentiating (sharing of time)
          011 - dynamic relatedness through integratring (sharing of time)
          010 - partness through integrating
          001 - static relatedness through integrating (sharing of space)
          000 - wholeness through integrating

          WE can form composites of these as we can keep making level by distinctions.

          Do these categories in ANY WAY find substance in our generation of meaning? I use four specialist perspectives to show they do in that they form a template of POSSIBLE classes of meaning and combinations of sensory expeirences and a priori consciousness reflections give us a hierarchy of labelled instances of these classes (or more so, what is an instance at one level becomes a class at a higher level)

          The simplest example is in the feelings associated with the classes of numbers we use in Mathematics:

          Sense of wholeness -> whole numbers
          Sense of partness -> rational numbers
          Sense of static relatedness (sharing of space) -> irrational numbers
          Sense of dynamic relatedness (sharing of time) -> imaginary numbers

          What is also noted is the shift in development in the concept of number as our brain moves from the overally integrated (complete, genetically-determined whole at birth) to experiences customising, discretising, the individual. This process is identified in, for example, sensory system differentiation and re-integration where such can elicit synesthesia (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html )

          This shiift is reflected in the breaking of symmetric laws associated with addition and multiplication and with expressions of cardinality as compared to an emerging sense of ordinality. Thus our mathematics becomes more complex as we start to include sequencing in our measurements (and so a scalar focus now includes vectors) and in doing so we derive more complex forms of number representations - thus the wholes/rationals/irrationals make up the REAL numbers and combining real with imaginary gives us the COMPLEX numbers. THis shift from cardinality to ordinality is reflected in the differences in development between expressions of magnitudes (scales of emotional expression) and expressions of sequence (hippocampal related dynamic) where the hippocampal development follows on from the amygdala development as the left hemisphere follows on from the right hemisphere - overall a focus on differentiating from an integrated whole.

          Self-referencing of the complex give us quaternions and self-referencing of them give us octonions. After that the algebra breaks down and the classes of numbers derivable become too specialist, losing their universal nature.

          So.... from the self-referencing of differentiate/integrate, something done by our brains, we derive the basic properties and methods of Mathematics and so map a development path from the neurology through category formation and into concept formation and on into emotional representations and on into the creation and use of symbols and metaphors.

          Another example? Sure - human emotions. See the derivation etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html associated with self-referencing the fight/flight dichotomy.

          Another example? Sure - self-referencing of the yin(integrating)/yang(differentiating) dichotomy as done in the ancient Chinese text the "I Ching" or "Book of Changes" - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html

          The bit sequences above reflect general-to-particular, hierarchic, dynamics. What is implied here is that the expression, the LABELS, of the elements of dichotomy do not matter - it is the ordering through self-referencing that derives the core meaning and then LOCAL context creates a label to associate the ONE universal set of classes of meaning with some unique moment/object etc.

          See comments etc in my page covering Personal Construct Psychology (George Kelly's work circa 1955) - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/pcp.html

          The IDM focus is on what comes out of self-referencing and does it in any way contribute to our experiences and interpretations of reality - the finding is it DOES and more so DOMINATES our interactions where the realm of EXPRESSION - the realm behaviourists focused upon - is a realm of local context customisations of genetically-determined essences where THEY reflect adaptation to the local environment and the universe in general; grounded in the basics of the Chaos Game - any containment of noise, regardless of scale, will elicit order through self-referencing.

          Thus ALL specialist perspectives are METAPHORS for what the brain does - differentiates and integrates in a hierarchic form. The METHOD used to derive meaning determines meaning and any experimental design in any specialisation will be nothing more than externalising the method used in the brain. And so, for example, the properties of quantum mechanics are in fact properties of OUR methodology in interpreting reality and span all scales, not just the microcosm (as I have shown on a number of pages on my website - I can generate wave/particle duality perspectives using pen and paper covering what comes out of self-referencing dichotomies ;-) )

          The ability for Mathematics to work is on the fact that it is a specialist perspective serving as metaphor and so is interchangable with other metaphors and so able to describe the context of other metaphors mathematically.

          The overall focus then is what comes out of self-referencing a dichotomy. Simple stuff. Obviously too simple for you but then that is usually the case - new ideas/perspectives come from outside those riddled with current/past dogma (what I call the 'over-educated' where the dogma acts as blinkers and so makes all creativity adaptive rather than innovative)

          cordially,

          Chris.
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting./myweb/introIDM.html
        • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
          ... BB - these terms are all re-definitions of differentiating/integrating and show attempts to customise perspectives and so justify the perspectives as being
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri Nov 2 3:06 , 'Barron Burrow' <barron.burrow@...> sent:

            >G.Sizemore said to Lofto:
            >
            >GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment
            >(coupled, of course, with our “learning mechanisms”). What you
            >are calling differentiation and integration have been investigated
            >for more than a century, beginning with Pavlov's work in the late
            >19th century and are referred to as 'discrimination'
            >and 'generalization.' >>
            >
            >Hi Glen, I'd be fascinated to know whether these last two terms that
            >you (and presumably behaviourists) use are synonymous with Gerald
            >Edelman's 'categorization' and 'generalisation'? He's basically
            >saying that, through implementation of an interplay between this
            >latter pair, reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for
            >spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions.
            >

            BB - these terms are all re-definitions of differentiating/integrating and show attempts to customise perspectives and so justify the perspectives as being considered 'specialist'. The drive to do so is natural, we are always re-inventing the wheel etc! However, as IDM covers, each specialisation, no matter how novel the language, cannot go past patterns of differentiating/integrating and the self-referencing of such. period.

            Glen's behaviourist perspective ofEdelman's own perspective or your perspective all share common ground behind the differences in the words you select to represent that ground.

            What IDM does is simply review what is possible in the derivation of meaning GIVEN the brain self-referencing using oscillations across a dichotomy. Simple. What comes out of that is the IDM template for all meaning for all neuron-dependent life forms where it is neural complexity that allows US to be so diverse with our labels.

            Thus IDM is not interested in the EXPRESSIONS and so DIFFERENCES but in the underlying SAMENESS that comes out of the self-referencing. ALL specialisations will develop out of this common ground, this template of meaning that seeds all metaphors etc. Thus by understanding IT we can pick up on the many differences quickly since we can identify the sameness they have come from.

            Chris.
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
          • Glen Sizemore
            ... dichotomy. Past researchers have not covered this. The simple act of mapping out the qualiteis derivable from the self-referencing, free of any specialist
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment




              --- On Thu, 11/1/07, chrislofting@... <chrislofting@...> wrote:

              From: chrislofting@... <chrislofting@...>
              Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Brain I/O: By-Passing the Senses Electromagnetically
              To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, November 1, 2007, 7:42 PM







              Hi Glen,

              On Thu Nov 1 4:50 , Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@ yahoo.com> sent:

              >GS: The source of “meaning” is relationships in the environment (coupled, of course, with our “learning mechanisms”). What you are calling differentiation and integration have been investigated for more than a century, beginning with Pavlov’s work in the late 19th century and are referred to as “discrimination” and “generalization.”

              CL: The focus in IDM is what comes out of *self-referencing* the differentiate/ integrate (aka what/where) dichotomy. Past researchers have not covered this. The simple act of mapping out the qualiteis derivable from the self-referencing, free of any specialist sensory system, elicits the template of qualities usable as classes of meaing in dealing with any context, any sense or combinations of.

              GS: This strikes me, as I have said before, as a bunch of useless gibberish. I do not say that as a rhetorical device; I say it in all truthfulness. I have read many books and papers in my life, and usually I can figure out something about what the person is trying to say. But what you say has virtually no meaning to me. It strikes me as the sort of thing that schizophrenics sometimes spew, except they often make some sense. I do not say this simply to be mean (though, in all honesty, I do dislike you rather intensely, just as I dislike any misinformed quack), I have often wondered whether or not you are clinically psychotic. I have come to the conclusion that you are not, but how you can think that you are saying something sensible, let alone important, is beyond me.


              CL: Pavlov et al failed to focus on the grounding methodology in the brain - but that is understandable since they had no idea what was going on 'in here' whereas these days we DO have an idea - even if still vague ;-)

              GS: First, there is no reason that the study of behavior MUST be in terms of physiology anymore than any other scientific subject matter MUST be couched in terms of some other set of dimensions. The fact is, there IS a natural science of behavior and much of it is composed of the field called behavior analysis (I would put most of psychology and "cognitive neurobiology"outside of natural science). Second, Pavlov, like more modern investigators, was interested in GENERAL laws, and did a pretty good job starting such a science. Also, BTW, Pavlov thought he was illuminating brain function. In that sense he was more like current mainstream psychologists (i.e., cognitive "scientists") than modern behaviorists. Without knowing ANYTHING about physiology, we CAN predict, control, and understand behavior, but that is because there IS a science of behavior.

              CL: The FACT that our brains use self-referencing is given in the (a) requirement of self-referencing to implement the XOR operator in the neurology and (b) the combination of attention and so encapsulation of 'something' combined with oscillations across the hemispheres when first dealing with that something where this oscillation is equivalent to self-referencing the left/right dichotomy where such reflects the underlying asymmetry of the neurology covering differentiating bias (left) vs integrating bias (right). What is derived in the self-referencing is a set of classes of POSSIBLE meanings and we select one to label the new/complex experience. This is then encoded over time in DIFFERENT parts of the brain as a set of labels.

              GS: I'm starting to change my alleged mind about your not being psychotic. But, as I said, psychotics often make more sense than you do. Seriously. I simply do not see ANY usefulness in what you say. Where is there any pragmatism?


              CL: The page on sensory paradox (http://members. iimetro.com. au/~lofting/ myweb/paradox. html ) also brings out the differentiating/ integrating differences in the brain and so its asymmetry. If we replace the differentiate/ integrate dichotomy with a representation of such in 'bit' form where 1=differentiation and 0=integration we can map out all that is POSSIBLE given the method. IF we do this to just three levels of iteration we have:

              (level 1) 1 / 0 (whole described through differentiating / whole described through integrating)
              (level 2) 11, 10 / 01, 00 (whole/part representations)
              (level 3) 111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000 (objects & relationships, whole and aspects)

              These representations cover the qualities forming categorise of meaning as:

              111 - wholeness through differentiating
              110 - static relatedness through differentiating (sharing of space)
              101 - partness through differentiating
              100 - dynamic relatedness through differentiating (sharing of time)
              011 - dynamic relatedness through integratring (sharing of time)
              010 - partness through integrating
              001 - static relatedness through integrating (sharing of space)
              000 - wholeness through integrating

              WE can form composites of these as we can keep making level by distinctions.

              Do these categories in ANY WAY find substance in our generation of meaning?

              GS: Some I can't understand at all. Some appear to be insidiously-lame ways of referring to exactly what I am talking about; general laws of behavior. For example, conditioning depends critically on timing, and this also imples some "sharing of space." If I turn on a light and follow it closely in time by electric shock to a rat's feet, the tone comes to function behaviorally in particular ways. This is classical conditioning and has been investigated for more than one hundred years, and was foreshadowed somewhat by philosophy; Aristotle, for example, with his laws of temporal and spatial contiguity.

              CL: I use four specialist perspectives to show they do in that they form a template of POSSIBLE classes of meaning and combinations of sensory expeirences and a priori consciousness reflections give us a hierarchy of labelled instances of these classes (or more so, what is an instance at one level becomes a class at a higher level)

              GS: Sorry, could you say this in English? In any event, I have already given your gibberish more time than it deserves. I'm not even sure what you are trying to explain. Behavior? What? How, for example, would you train a pigeon to alert you when it sees a human bobbing in the ocean? Or even direct you toward it? True, there are a lot of animal trainers who might be able to figure this out (and it is important that many people who make money by training animals to do stuff are becoming increasingly informed about behavior analysis) but they are able to do this either because they have some direct exposure to behavior analysis (I have written several letters of recommendation for students interested in positions at seaquariums etc. who have taken both the lecture and lab in behavior analysis), or because they have been acquainted with folk practices discovered through the ages. What can you offer? How does any of your apparent gibberish shed light on that? It is true that the same criticism applies to a lot of people that are "brain scientists." Ultimately, these people MUST explain behavior, but a lot of times they are hopeless at saying how to train animals to acttually do anything. They spend their time puffing out their chests and claiming they can explain behavior, but they are unconcerned with, and ignorant of, the sorts of environmental arrnagements necessary for certain types of behavior to emerge. Anyway, as I said, I have already given your nonsense far more than it is worth.

              With Affection,
              Glen

              <snip>
            • Chris Lofting
              ... ... I see your bias - your focus is instinctively on behaviour and so behaviour analysis - you focus on what is observed. BUT we have moved beyond
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of Glen Sizemore
                > Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2007 3:52 AM
                > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Brain I/O: By-Passing the Senses
                > Electromagnetically
                >
                <snip>

                > I'm not even sure what
                > you are trying to explain. Behavior? What?

                I see your bias - your focus is instinctively on behaviour and so behaviour
                analysis - you focus on what is observed. BUT we have moved beyond that
                focus on expressions in social interactions in that we can now see the
                source of expressions in neural activities through fMRI etc. Given THAT
                material, IDM focuses on:

                (1) The roots of meaning given the neurology and sensory systems.
                (2) Determinism, and so the arsenal of classes of meanings used in behaviour
                (and so 'deterministic meaning').
                (3) "Free Will", the development of an aspect of behaviour that allows for
                the breaking of deterministic influences through 'random' acts and in so
                doing derive apparently 'new' meaning - the emphasis being that the
                'newness' is in the label, not the quality of meaning it represents; a whole
                is a whole, we make the distinctions between wholes and parts where those
                distinctions are made at the neurological level through self-referencing.
                Education then customises meaning by determining what is a whole and what is
                a part as far as that context is concerned - and so what is a whole to me is
                a considered a part by you.

                The evolution of free-will/determinism covers the development of our species
                as compared to all others, and considerations of current neuroscience (due
                to its ability to see inside the individual through fMRI etc) gives us good
                insight into the dynamics involved across the elements of the dichotomy. In
                other words IDM 'started again' in the analysis of behaviours, rejected all
                past findings since they lacked precision in interpretations to focus on
                what the current presents us with.

                If we then focus on acts of free-will and acts of determinism we get into
                the constraints of the physiology and their influence on
                deriving/communicating meaning and so the behaviour associated with such
                derivation/communication.

                The rigid behaviourism of your time covered the mechanistic dynamics of
                stimulus/response. As a conscious species we have moved beyond that, even if
                you don't want to ;-), and cover complexity/chaos dynamics operating within
                our brains and so seeding behaviours that include 'initial conditions'
                issues (and that includes emotion patterns at work that act to dampen or
                amplify stimulus/response etc. The degree of work done in your time, Glen,
                lacked the precision we get today. Early behaviourism was like naked-eye
                astronomy where now we have the instruments to take us far far beyond those
                'primitive' perspectives (e.g. in astronomy we now have the Hubble etc)

                Careful consideration of what the brain does in the processing of
                information brings out a template used to ground meaning where that template
                seeds all POSSIBLE interpretations of reality and so choices in behaviours
                in response to those interpretations of some stimulus.

                This template comes out of the Chaos-game focus on the containment of noise
                eliciting spontaneous order through self-referencing. If you don't
                understand that then I suggest you look it up through Google.

                The introduction to IDM opens with:

                "IDM is about the derivation of meaning given the basic dynamics of
                category, classifications, and concept creation by our neurological,
                cognitive, and emotional faculties. More so it is about the qualitative
                representation of that meaning where "Anything that can be represented can
                be represented (in principle) as a string of binary digits via an isomorphic
                mapping, ... The process is similar to producing a string that is rather
                like the record of an extended game of twenty questions, with 1s
                conventionally representing affirmation and 0s representing negation. A
                successful series of guesses produces a truth table row that represents the
                original thing."
                (http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/jdc/information/information.html) In IDM we
                identify core qualities represented as 'bit' patterns (orderings of 0/1)
                serving as sources of meaning across the species, in GENERAL.

                An example of this usage is in George Kelly's derivation of Personal
                Construct Psychology" (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/pcp.html
                ). In his original text, The Psychology of Personal Constructs Vol 1, Kelly
                spells out the concept of Hierarchical scales (pp 99-100) where he writes:

                "Just as it is possible to express an infinite number of gradations of value
                in terms of binary number systems, so it is possible to express an infinite
                number of gradations of value in terms of a dichotomous construct system.
                One may construct such a scale by assuming a hierarchy of construct.
                Consider a hierarchy of four constructs in the order of A, B, C, and D, each
                of which has two possible values, 0 and 1. A hierarchical scale of values
                may be built up from these four constructs. It will have log2^-1 4 or
                sixteen steps. The values of the sixteen steps can be represented by the
                first sixteen numbers of the binary system as follows:

                0000
                0001
                0010
                0011
                0100
                0101
                0110
                0111
                1000
                1001
                1010
                1011
                1100
                1101
                1110
                1111

                Suppose we build a hierarchical scale of integrity vs disintegrity out of
                four basic constructs of honesty vs dishonesty, candour vs deviousness,
                courage vs defeatism and objectivity vs subjectivity. Suppose also that
                these constructs are arranged in that hierarchical order. Let the binary
                digit 1 represent the first of each pair and the binary digit 0 the second
                of each pair. A dishonest, devious, defeatist, subjective person would be
                represented by the scale value 0000 and would be at the disintegral end of
                the scale. An honest but devious defeatist, subjective person would be
                represented by the number 1000. Because if the high relevance of honesty to
                integrity, he rates in the upper half of the scale. A person who was
                dishonest, devious, defeatist, and objective would be represented by the
                number 0001 and would still be near the bottom of the scale" pp99-100

                Essential to the dynamics of meaning derivation is the creation of, or
                recognition of, difference and the mentioned bit patterns bring out those
                differences. Thus the making of distinctions, the determination of, the
                mapping of, differences to samenesses serves as the foundation for all
                meaning, and this focus on distinction-making is manifest in our brains
                through self-referencing.

                Self-referencing, also known as recursion, utilises (a) a generic dichotomy,
                (b) our attention system, and (c) the passage of time, to generate the set
                of basic, universal, categories mentioned previously. The attention system
                focuses and so encapsulates 'something'. The generic dichotomy is any
                specialist form that is synonymous with the WHAT/WHERE, aka
                differentiating/integrating. This dichotomy is fundamental in that it
                reflects the information processing dynamic of our brains.

                Overall this dynamic covers the translation of differences and the
                asymmetric to sameness and the symmetric, where it is the realm of the
                symmetric that allows us to communicate through consensus. This realm of the
                symmetric is also the realm of instincts/habits and so generals that act to
                filter experiences. Thus the use of instincts/habits act to generalise an
                experience but in doing so can lose precision in that experience. (this can
                have an affect on the development of logic in the species - see such works
                as Matte-Blanco's "The Unconscious as Infinite Sets":

                Ignacio Matte Blanco, The Unconscious as Infinite Sets, Karnac Books, 1998
                (originally published 1975)

                If each moment elicits a 'what' or 'where' perspective, repeated use of that
                dichotomy means we are applying the dichotomy to itself and in so doing
                deriving a set of possible categories, one of which will be the 'best fit'
                in describing the current situation. The focus on the oscillation is on the
                PRECISION that develops from such an activity where we move from a symmetric
                perspective to an asymmetric perspective.

                Note that the TIMING of oscillations brought out the price of mis-timing, of
                timing 'anomolies' where accumulated time 'over' one side led to the
                characteristics of that side influencing thinking in general (e.g. Pettigrew
                & Miller 2002 - http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html ) and so
                bringing out mania/depression dynamics and so different forms of behaviour
                due to internal modifications to some stimulus - in other words there is
                activity going on other than passing stimulus to response.

                When dealing with the new or complex, these oscillations span the
                hemispheres and as such form a dichotomy of left-brain/right-brain where the
                asymmetric nature overall brings out patterns of the differentiate/integrate
                dichotomy in that the left hemisphere has a bias to the differentiating in
                most, and the right has a bias to integrating. (zoom-in on this and we find
                a fractal format but IN GENERAL the left/right distinctions hold) See:

                Banich, M.T., "Hemispheric Interaction" IN p 270 Hugdahl,K., & Davidson,
                R.,(2004)

                Banich,M., & Karol (1992) "The sum of the parts does not equal the whole:
                Evidence from bihemispheric processing" Journal of Experimental Psychology
                :Human Perception and Performance 18, 763-784

                Friedman,A & Polson,M.,(1981)"The hemispheres as independent resource
                systems: limited capacity processing and cerebral specialisation" Journal of
                Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance 7, 1031-1058

                Goldberg, E.(2001)"The Executive Brain : Frontal Lobes and the Civilised
                Mind" OUP

                Buzsaki, G., (2006)"Rhythms of the Brain" OUP

                Hugdahl,K., & Davidson, R.,(eds)(2004)"The Asymmetrical Brain" MITP

                Posner, M.I., (Ed)(2004) "Cognitive neuroscience of attention" The Guilford
                Press

                If you cannot understand my prose then I suggest you go through the above
                reference material (and the pages of other references supplied at my
                website). With consciousness all stimulus/response behaviours are mediated
                and the self-referencing in our brains in deriving POSSIBLE qualities of
                meaning aids in identifying what the mediation 'does' behaviourally - and so
                we can focus on the behaviour of consciousness in our heads and so prior to
                expression; we can see the mediation dynamics at work and the set of
                POSSIBLE categories of meaning used in that mediation.

                Given the ability to map out what is POSSIBLE from the methodology of our
                brains, so we can identify any specialist perspective very quickly since we
                now know that specialisation as a metaphor for what the brain does -
                differentiate/integrate. In this identification we recognise that the
                specialist language and perspectives offered by the specialisation are not
                unique to the specialisation, they are merely relabelling of existing set of
                generic categories/perspectives to some local context. It is this sameness
                across specialisations that allows for one specialisation to work as
                analogy/metaphor in fleshing-out some other specialisation (and so the
                specialisation of Mathematics can be applied to Psychology or Physics etc)

                I realise that a lot of this can be upsetting for old-timers like yourself
                (cant teach a dog new tricks! ;-)) but the only way you will be able to
                understand it is by focusing carefully upon it rather than trying to
                understand something new on the first read and dismissing it if you cant
                'get it'. The perspective is DIFFERENT and to someone so hard-coded with old
                dogma it will 'jar' your expectations of sameness (and so appear as if
                'psychotic')

                As to likes/dislikes - I don't know you so I reserve judgement. I find your
                prose rigid, limited in behaviourist thinking etc. and for a behaviourist
                that's fine - the issue come when you try to impose your perspective not
                through evidence or logical/rational discussion but through outright
                dismissal and abuse. Not helpful. What your dismissiveness and abuse
                indicates is you have surrendered Science for Religion - you have become a
                fundamentalist! ;-)

                Chris.
                http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.