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

Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Language Acquisition and Brain Development

Expand Messages
  • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
    L1 is local, L0 is universal and is defined by the bounds of the neurology and so defined by what comes out of the methodology - patterns of
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      L1 is local, L0 is universal and is defined by the bounds of the neurology and
      so defined by what comes out of the methodology - patterns of
      differentiating/integrating and so a realm of POTENTIALS that LOCAL context
      then actualises.

      The DEMAND for self-referencing in the neurology to allow for high precision
      analysis of details of sensations etc ensures that 'recursion rules' in the
      neurology and on into cognitive, emotional and symbolic categorisations.

      The IDM template covers this range of POTENTIAL qualities usable in developing
      local context languages where we take the universals and tie them to a local
      context where that tie, through the use of labels, ensures the
      development of a
      local, specialist, language - be it one's personal language or that of a
      collective.

      Linguists continue to be 'out of date' in their thinking probably because they
      try to source the orgins etc of language without reference to the properties
      and methods of the neurology where lies the source of all meaning.

      This is the same as Psychologists 'starting' from Psychology to try and
      identify
      the structure of personality. They too fail.

      The properties and methods of all specialisations are metaphors for
      what the ONE
      generalisation is focused upon - patterns of differentiating/integrating,
      objects/relationships. Understand THOSE patterns and suddenly the
      specialisations are no longer 'special' and to be taken literally, just
      conventient for their specific context.

      Given the work in neurosciences, out of which has come such models as
      IDM, so we
      are in a position to re-evaluate all past 'specialist' perspectives where,
      without reference to current neurosciences they are no longer 'precise', at
      best 'approximate'.

      Once the linguists and psychologists get their act together we may
      start to more
      clearly understand what we are dealing with through their incorporation
      of basic
      findings in neurosciences into their work and so we can advance rather than
      currently be stuck in dogma in nead of 'fresh blood'.

      Chris.


      Quoting Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>:

      > On Language Acquisition and Brain Development
      >
      > The following points are made by Kuniyoshi L. Sakai (Science 2005 310:815):
      >
      > 1) A child acquires any natural languages within a few years, without
      > the aid of analytical thinking and without explicit "grammar"
      > instruction as usually taught in school. The origin of grammatical
      > rules should thus be ascribed to an innate system in the human brain.
      > The knowledge of and competence for human language is acquired
      > through various means and modality types. Linguists regard speaking,
      > signing, and language comprehension as primary faculties of language,
      > i.e., innate or inherent and biologically determined, whereas they
      > regard reading and writing as secondary abilities.
      >
      > 2) Indeed, the native or first language (L1) is acquired during the
      > first years of life through such primary faculties while children are
      > rapidly expanding their linguistic knowledge. In contrast, reading
      > and writing are learned with much conscious effort and repetition,
      > usually at school. This ability may be influenced by cultural rather
      > than biological factors. However, the existence of developmental
      > dyslexics indicates that reading ability requires specific neural
      > mechanisms, and a link between poor reading and impaired auditory
      > resolution has been suggested.
      >
      > Full Text at ScienceWeek
      > http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060106-2.htm
      >
      > Posted by
      > Robert Karl Stonjek



      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      This message was sent using MyMail
    • gevans613@aol.com
      In a message dated 01/01/2006 19:42:06 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@ozemail.com.au writes: L1 is local, L0 is universal and is defined by the bounds of the
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 01/01/2006 19:42:06 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@... writes:
        L1 is local, L0 is universal and is defined by the bounds of the neurology and
        so defined by what comes out of the methodology - patterns of
        differentiating/integrating and so a realm of POTENTIALS that LOCAL context
        then actualises.

        The DEMAND for self-referencing in the neurology to allow for high precision
        analysis of details of sensations etc ensures that 'recursion rules' in the
        neurology and on into cognitive, emotional and symbolic categorisations.

        The IDM template covers this range of POTENTIAL qualities usable in developing
        local context languages where we take the universals and tie them to a local
        context where that tie, through the use of labels, ensures the
        development of a
        local, specialist, language - be it one's personal language or that of a
        collective.

        Linguists continue to be 'out of date' in their thinking probably because they
        try to source the orgins etc of language without reference to the properties
        and methods of the neurology where lies the source of all meaning.
        This is the same as Psychologists 'starting' from Psychology to try and
        identify the structure of personality. They too fail.

        The properties and methods of all specialisations are metaphors for
        what the ONE generalisation is focused upon - patterns of differentiating/integrating,
        objects/relationships. Understand THOSE patterns and suddenly the
        specialisations are no longer 'special' and to be taken literally, just
        conventient for their specific context.
         
        Jud:
        Happy New Year Chris - a new year it may well be  - but that does not effect the fact that
        the *properties* of neurology do not exist. In the same way, the structure of personality, the properties and methods of all specialisations, the patterns of differentiating/integrating,  objects/relationships do not exist either.
         
         
        What exists are flesh and blood human brains and bodies and the extremely intelligent and well-intentioned but misapprehending abstractionalising Chris abstractionaising away like there was no tomorrow.
         
        The completely unfounded supposition that there exists an ontological duality between the physical body and a nonmaterial ‘mind’ is a notion for which there is no evidence.  The eliminative materialist Prof. Patricia Churchland whose work is in the forefront of deconstructing and reducing the whole subjective concept of the nonmaterial  ‘mind’ to that of a neuro-physical working brain; comments that there is an additional variance of views amongst the current psychological and psychiatric establishment which can be represented as being roughly divided into two.I would be interested to hear which category you would place yourself?

         

        ‘Within this view there is a further division over whether this mental dimension harbours a separate mental substance such as the non-physical mind or the soul (substance dualism) or whether it is limited to non-physical properties of the physical brain (property dualism’.)  P.S. Churchland. Neurophilosophy. Towards a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain. P.317.

         

            It is worth giving consideration to the eliminative materialist position, which though less strident than that of Szasz, who is probably the most well known member of the anti-psychiatry movement, is thought by many to be more cogent and convincing, for it seeks not only to exclude the idea of the non-physical ‘mind’ as being prone to disease, but assembles arguments designed to dispose of the idea of an existing ‘mind’ altogether. Paul and Patricia Churchland’s innovative criticism is vital for any discussion of ‘diseases of the mind’ – for plainly if ‘mind’ does not exist, then the ‘diseases’ of the mind are a fiction and do not exist either.

         

          Patricia Churchland continues:

           ‘An intractable problem confronting substance dualism is the nature of the interaction between the two radically different kinds of substance. Soul-stuff allegedly has none of the properties of material-stuff and is not spatially extended, and the question this concerns is how and where the two substances interact. This problem stymied Descartes, and his completely inadequate solution was to suggest that the ‘animal spirits’ functioned to mediate between the two types of substance and that the subtle interaction took place in the pineal gland. But his animal spirits were composed of material stuff, albeit very fine material stuff, so the problem stood its ground.’ Churchland. Ibid. p 318.

         

          

         

         In spite of their inability to explain the precise nature of the ‘mind,’ and although some of the terms employed by the current psychiatric community are vague, it appears that unbelievably the modern practitioners continue to consider themselves and their methodology to be objective and successful.  They claim that patient-behaviour is observed and carefully monitored and in most cases, diagnoses successfully identify behaviour as falling into recognised textbook categories of 'mental illness.'   They point to the many improvements in the treatment of the mentally ill.  They cite the great strides in the development of new drugs and the consequent closing down of mental institutions and release of patients into society which began in Britain in the late nineteen-fifties that these new medications have made possible.  The sceptic might be forgiven for pointing out that the chemical drugs are absorbed by the body and not the mind, for how could something metaphysical that doesn’t exist be affected by anything?

         

         

        Are the criticisms of psychiatry by the anti-psychiatry movement justified?

         

        One of the criticisms of the anti-psychiatric movement is that psychiatric classification depends solely on the whim or values of those doing the classification, who are seen as unwitting agents of social control, and that there is nothing objective about the often arbitrary decision-making at all, and that there are no scientific facts about what is normal.  Critics point to the fact that homosexuality was until quite recently considered to be a mental-illness, that in the former USSR an anti-Soviet stance was considered to be crazy, and that whilst suicide is considered in the west to be indicative of mental illness or madness, in Japan, the land of hara-kiri, it is still considered socially acceptable in many cases. 

         

         

         

        With regard to suicide in the west, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz writes:

        ‘Suicide is a fundamental human right. ...society does not have the moral right to interfere, by force, with a person's decision to commit this act.’  Thomas Szasz The Untamed Tongue. 

         

         Psychologist Paul G. Quinnett, Ph.D., says:

        ‘Rather than being impulsive, suicide is something people do after long contemplation as part of their efforts to deal with what they consider intolerable life circumstances.

          Paul. G. Quinnett.  Suicide: The Forever Decision, (pp. 18-19). 

         

        For such eminent critics the identification by traditional psychiatrists of ‘mental illness’ is a value judgment concerning a person's way of behaving not a diagnosis of authentic brain disease.  So-called mental illness does not deprive people of free will, but on the contrary is a manifestation of free will, which often results in stigmatisation by others. The opposition insists that those in the psychiatric establishment who claim mental illness destroys ‘meaningful’ free will  are agreeing with the notion of mental illness as brain disease without sufficient grounds or are declining to accept the opinions of others only because they dissent from their own.

         

                               

        The defenders of traditional psychiatry themselves are very conscious of the increasing disrepute in which psychiatry finds itself. Leznek a psychiatrist sympathetic to the theories of ‘mind’ himself admits that:

         

        ‘The foundations of psychiatry are shaking.' As a branch of medi

        cine, it is firmly committed to the existence of mental illnesses, but there is little consensus as to their existence. As a branch of medical science, it presumes to discover the truth about the causes of abnormal human behaviour using scientific methodology, but there is a question mark against the scientific status of psychiatric knowledge. In short, as a theoretical enterprise, psychiatry is in a bad way.

        Reznek, L. The Philosophical Defence of Psychiatry.

         

        In the opinion of E. Fuller Torrey, M.D.

         

        ‘The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are, with few exceptions on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witchdoctors.’

        E. Fuller Torrey, The Death of Psychiatry. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company, 1974

         

            These scathing criticisms are generally proposed in a spirit of undermining psychiatry, and are often sympathetic to the Szaszian view that there is really no such thing as mental illness, and so there could not be a legitimate objective classification of different kinds of mental illness. With Szasz the suggestion is that classification schemes are created to suit the needs of those in power.  Conventional psychiatry responds that this position does not take into consideration the current lack of understanding and the extent to which physical ill health as a whole may not be comprehended.  Additionally they defend themselves by responding that a rejection of 'the mental’ does not allow 'mental illness’ to be associated with the wider domain of psychological abnormality.

         

                              ‘The treatment you receive depends on the orientation of your psychiatrist, not on a solid foundation of knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of the disorder itself.’

        Edward Drummond, M.D.  The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs pages 8-9. 

         

        Anti-psychiatry's burgeoning attraction is related to wider political, educational and cultural developments and may be also shaped by the gradual decline of religious influence in western European countries.

         

        Reznek, a critic of Szasz writes:

        ‘However, it seems that his most fundamental criticism is not of the scientific methodology of psychiatry, but of its concepts. His claim is that the concept of mental illness is based on confusion.

        Lawrie Reznek. Evil or Ill? Justifying the Insanity Defence.1991,Ch. 5.

         

        ‘The belief in mental illness rests on a serious, albeit simple, error: it rests on mistaking or confusing what is real with what is imitation; literal meaning with metaphorical meaning; medicine with morals.’

        Lawrie Reznek. Ibid, p. 10.)

        ‘He (Szasz) argues that by definition, ‘disease means bodily disease.’

        Lawrie Reznek.  Ibid, p.74.

         

         Self-styled 'psychologists' and 'mental therapists' proliferate - particularly in angst-ridden USA, where a visit to 'my therapist' has been transformed into a social cachet to be offhandedly dropped into cocktail party conversation as if it were perhaps indicative of some personal accomplishment or social grace.

        Like the eliminativist man and wife team Paul and Patricia Churchland many are now questioning whether madness or mental illness - or even the mind itself exists at all, and whether madness is a malfunction of the body like any other physical disorder?  I believe that those of the anti-psychiatry movement who argue in this way are absolutely right to do so and happily their views coincide with my own ontological position as an eliminative materialist.    To address the essay question directly once again. On the basis of the Churchlands’ views, the opinions of  Szasz, Torrey, Quinnett, Drummond and many other eminent critics, including even frustrated traditionalists such as Leznek, who whilst defending the old ways are honest enough to recognise its failings, I am disposed to agree with the anti-psychiatrists. The word ‘madness’ has simply been replaced with the euphemisms ‘mental illness’ and ‘disease of the mind’ etc., which imply that such a thing as ‘mind’ exists. In that sense the concept of madness is simply a label used without any objective foundation. 

         

        It is my belief that ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ and ‘function’ or ‘misfunction,’ and so called ‘behavioural problems’ in humankind are abstractions. For me what actually exists is the body-brain itself existing in the way it exists. 

         

         First we must ask ourselves another question. Is it right as a society to seek to modify perceived modalities or states of behaviour in those people considered in need of help?   Is it ethically correct to render others more acceptable to conventions that embody the fundamental values of a society or group?  If the answer to this question is ‘yes,’ then success is not to be accomplished by addressing some imaginary non-material ontological duality called ‘mind.’  Success will only be found in treating the physical structure off the organism - the human entity – the body incarnate – the corporeal existent.

         

        Best wishes to all for 2006.
         
        Jud.




        Given the work in neurosciences, out of which has come such models as
        IDM, so we
        are in a position to re-evaluate all past 'specialist' perspectives where,
        without reference to current neurosciences they are no longer 'precise', at
        best 'approximate'.

        Once the linguists and psychologists get their act together we may
        start to more
        clearly understand what we are dealing with through their incorporation
        of basic
        findings in neurosciences into their work and so we can advance rather than
        currently be stuck in dogma in nead of 'fresh blood'.

        Chris.


        Quoting Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>:

        > On Language Acquisition and Brain Development
        >
        > The following points are made by Kuniyoshi L. Sakai (Science 2005 310:815):
        >
        > 1) A child acquires any natural languages within a few years, without
        > the aid of analytical thinking and without explicit "grammar"
        > instruction as usually taught in school. The origin of grammatical
        > rules should thus be ascribed to an innate system in the human brain.
        > The knowledge of and competence for human language is acquired
        > through various means and modality types. Linguists regard speaking,
        > signing, and language comprehension as primary faculties of language,
        > i.e., innate or inherent and biologically determined, whereas they
        > regard reading and writing as secondary abilities.
        >
        > 2) Indeed, the native or first language (L1) is acquired during the
        > first years of life through such primary faculties while children are
        > rapidly expanding their linguistic knowledge. In contrast, reading
        > and writing are learned with much conscious effort and repetition,
        > usually at school. This ability may be influenced by cultural rather
        > than biological factors. However, the existence of developmental
        > dyslexics indicates that reading ability requires specific neural
        > mechanisms, and a link between poor reading and impaired auditory
        > resolution has been suggested.
        >
        > Full Text at ScienceWeek
        > http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060106-2.htm
        >
        > Posted by
        > Robert Karl Stonjek



        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        This message was sent using MyMail





        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            MindBrain-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



         
      • Chris Lofting
        Jud, Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the abstraction of qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Jud,

          Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the abstraction of
          qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
          Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and out
          will come better understanding of the particular, local.

          If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
          producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
          patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations across
          left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
          deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
          neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the elements of
          the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
          elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is derived
          from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS in
          that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the long
          term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
          expressions.

          The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness', the discrete, and
          without that there would be no consciousness; the moment you say "I think
          that" etc so you have differentiated yourself from all else - BUT that focus
          on differentiating is a focus on moving past the whole and into parts
          analysis - IOW we move to internal analysis of 'something' and in doing so
          can suspend holistic interactions with 'reality'; we become mechanistic but
          in doing so we also become VERY precise in identifications etc that we can
          then re-integrate to be 'mindlessly' whole again - letting context push our
          buttons. As such there is a dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
          dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (in linguistics
          the term is nominalisation (verb to noun)/de-nominalisation (noun to verb))

          This movement guarantees the creation of paradox in that it is our
          consciousness that creates such perspectives - and that's fine as long as we
          know what is going on ;-) - the price of precision is the occasional paradox
          (and so the examples of this XOR/AND dynamic in
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

          Differentiating is a fundamental part of our being, it is built-in to our
          neurology, in that it enables the PRECISE identification of patterns 'out
          there' (as well as 'in here'). With differentiation comes a DELAY factor
          that reflects the actions of awareness in the processing of information
          prior to the habituation to that information in the form of symbol and habit
          formations - upon which the delay, and awareness, disappear.

          With the presence of delay comes the label of 'consciousness' compared to
          the lack of that delay that comes with the label of
          'unconscious'/'instinctive'. - ( and so the presence of the serial/parallel
          dichotomy that accompanies the mechanistic/organic dichotomy - both
          dichotomies being context-sensitive examples of differentiating/integrating)

          Without understanding these simple, and so basic dynamics of the brain, all
          philosophy is fiction. That said, even supposedly 'neuron-aware' people like
          the Churchlands etc are still too focused on the trees to 'grok' the forest.

          Consciousness is to neurology what a Mozart sonata is to the CD encoding it
          - both consciousness and that sonata come out of the 'playing' - be it
          neural dynamics in the brain or laser dynamics in the CD the mediation
          involved elicits what we hear/see/feel/reason.

          Consciousness, being an agent of mediation, is not necessary for survival,
          one can live like an ape off instincts and limited awareness of self if you
          wish, but to live in a collective DESIGNED by interactions of awareness with
          context, and so a mediating collective, means the necessity for the label of
          'consciousness'.

          As I have repeatedly suggested, consciousness is a PRODUCT, an ARTIFACT, of
          neural dynamics and as such the realm of mediation and labelling is very
          much part of US. 'lower' levels of personal awareness seem to be expressed
          in lower neuron-dependent life forms but it appears to require high neural
          complexity to 'link all of the dots' into some 24/7 sense of awareness (and
          so when we wake up we can continue where we left off when we went to sleep!)

          The hierarchy of neural development allows for the oscillation dynamics
          mentioned earlier operating at the 'top' end of the neural pyramid. (and so
          variations in the timing can accumulate to elicit a distinct 'persona' in
          the individual's overall behaviour - all POSSIBLE personas are part of our
          genetic heritage but LOCAL CONTEXT can then 'select' a bias to one over the
          others - and that includes a nominalist perspective vs a non-nominalist
          (recurse that dichotomy to get the full spectrum of types ;-) --- although
          the more charismatic types favour asserting their context as 'THE' context
          ;-))


          Chris.
        • gevans613@aol.com
          In a message dated 02/01/2006 08:14:13 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@ozemail.com.au writes: Jud, Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 02/01/2006 08:14:13 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@... writes:
            Jud,
            Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the abstraction of
            qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
            Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and out
            will come better understanding of the particular, local.
            Jud:
            No. Nouns and verbs and all the other signals we use to communicate are the way that we consciously
            transfer notions of the way WE are existing at the time the transfer is made to the conscious human recipient of
            those signals and signs in order that THEY then exist in a modality of being aware of how we were existing at the time the transfer was made. The *meaning* is manifested in the changes rendered in the way the addressee exists after he or she has received the codes and converted them into meaningful ways of neurologically existing.
            The codes [the nouns and verbs] have no INTRINSIC meaning - the meaning is what the human brain extrapolates from the codes.
            The plate fastened to the hull of the unmanned spaceship blasted into the far areas of the universe with the human greeting words thereon is utterly meaningless unless those words are on day read by a human or an alien who has *cracked* the codes in order to understand them.
            The meaning and understandability lies with the human and the alien semiotician NOT the actual codes.
            When a human looks at a tree - the *treeness* and the word *tree* does not lie somewhere in the branches or under the bark of the *tree* - it lies in the human neurological networks.  The tree simply exists as it exists  - completely unmeaningfully in the spatial position in which it happens to be.  The noun and the verb lie as outlines of dried ink particles - bereft of any *meaning*  Until a human being who is neurologically *tooled up* to extract meaning from the meaningless symbols converts the shapes on the page into changes in the patterns in the electrochemical biomass of his neurological reticulation.

            Chris:
            If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
            producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
            patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations across
            left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
            deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
            neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the elements of
            the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
            elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is derived
            from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS in
            that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the long
            term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
            expressions.
             
            Jud:
            See above - aural signals work in exactly the same way - there is no intrinsic *meaning* to be found in the notes.
            The *meaning* is to be found in the oscillating brain NOT in the brain oscillations across
            left/right, front/back of the brain - for they do not exist - only the oscillating neurons exist down to a pair of neurons
            deriving the exclusive OR.
             
            Like all metaphysicians of the brain you keep insisting that there are some weirdo non-material doo-dahs called *oscillations*
            which exist.  I suppose you believe that the *twinkling* of Xmas tree lights exist, rather than what ACTUALLY exists which is the twinkling xmas tree lights? It is precisely this medieval attitude which is bringing psychology, psychiatry and some versions of neurology into so much disrepute, which will ultimately end up in the loss of jobs in the profession throughout huge swathes of the medical and academic establishment.

            Chris:
            The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',
             
             
            Jud:
            *Thingness* does not exist - only material entities exist.
            Ship me a crate of *thingness* to my address and I will alert the BBC and the American media immediately - I can be your agent [(10%] and I promise you international stardom.  ;-)
             
             
            Chris  The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',... the discrete, and
            without that there would be no consciousness; ...
             
            Jud:
            There is ALREADY no *consciousness* only the conscious, differentiating  Chris exists.
             
             
            Chris:
            the moment you say "I think that" etc so you have differentiated yourself from all else - BUT that focus
            on differentiating is a focus on moving past the whole and into parts
            analysis -
             
            Jud:
            The moment you say *I think that...* you exist in different modalities of cogitating, your brain nets change
            their configuration and enter into a comparative modality of analysing intrinsically and extrinsically derived *meaning.*
            The *focus* or *focusing* does not exist - only he or she who focuses exists.
             
             
             
            Chris:
             IOW we move to internal analysis of 'something' and in doing so
            can suspend holistic interactions with 'reality';
             
            Jud:
            There is no *reality* it does not exist.  What exists is that which is real [you, me the tree,]
            What exists is the *realising* you and me.
             
             
            Chris:
            we become mechanistic but in doing so we also become VERY precise in identifications etc that we can
            then re-integrate to be 'mindlessly' whole again - letting context push our
            buttons. As such there is a dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
            dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (in linguistics
            the term is nominalisation (verb to noun)/de-nominalisation (noun to verb))
             
            Jud:
            No - we become very precise in identifying the way in which that which we are identifying [say the tree] exists.
            Identifications themselves do not exist. There is no *dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
            dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy* it does not exist.
            What exists is the dichotomising human brain  - the *meaning* of words do not exist - only the human wordifier and nominaliser exists in existential modalities of *meaning something* and *nominalising something.*
            There is no non-material *second-order or *higher-realm* of existence* which is in some way *separate* or dichotomised from the brain-meat.
             


            Chris:
            This movement guarantees the creation of paradox in that it is our
            consciousness that creates such perspectives - and that's fine as long as we
            know what is going on ;-) - the price of precision is the occasional paradox
            (and so the examples of this XOR/AND dynamic in
            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
             
            Jud:
            *Perspectives, consciousness, paradoxes, precision,*  are fictions - useful abstractions
            which are completely absent from the brain itself.  Only the perspectival, conscious, precise or imprecise brain exists
            which sometimes is perplexed by seeing paradox. These fictions have no place in science.

            Chris:
            Differentiating is a fundamental part of our being,
             
            Jud:
            We have no *being* or *Being* - we are a certain type of entity which we call a *human* being a human.
            Existence and *being do not exist - only that which exists as a certain object and that which is a certain entity exists.
            *Differentiating* does not exist - only the differentiating human exists.
             
             
            Chris:  [differentiating] it is built-in to our neurology, in that it enables the PRECISE identification of patterns 'out
            there' (as well as 'in here'). With differentiation comes a DELAY factor
            that reflects the actions of awareness in the processing of information
            prior to the habituation to that information in the form of symbol and habit
            formations - upon which the delay, and awareness, disappear.

            With the presence of delay comes the label of 'consciousness' compared to
            the lack of that delay that comes with the label of
            'unconscious'/'instinctive'. - ( and so the presence of the serial/parallel
            dichotomy that accompanies the mechanistic/organic dichotomy - both
            dichotomies being context-sensitive examples of differentiating/integrating)

            Without understanding these simple, and so basic dynamics of the brain, all
            philosophy is fiction. That said, even supposedly 'neuron-aware' people like
            the Churchlands etc are still too focused on the trees to 'grok' the forest.
             
            Jud:
            No, Chris all YOUR abstract-dependant fiction-conditional  kind of philosophy is fiction both in conception and application. 
            It did not need the Churchlands to work that one out.
            The Churchlands know all about *forrests* and like me they realise that *forrests do not exist.
            What exists are individual trees grouped in a position of spatial contingency-
            *to be grouped in a position of spatial contingency* does not exist - what exists are the individuate trees grouped in a position of spatial contingency

            Chris:
            Consciousness is to neurology what a Mozart sonata is to the CD encoding it
            - both consciousness and that sonata come out of the 'playing' - be it
            neural dynamics in the brain or laser dynamics in the CD the mediation
            involved elicits what we hear/see/feel/reason.
             
             
            Jud:
            Neither *consciousness* nor *neurology* exist.  What exists is the neuron-equipped human
            decoding the sounds produced from playing the CD and converting them into meaningful modifications in those areas of their neuronal net which mediates such signals into pleasurable or unpleasurable existential modifications.
            The human, the CD, the CD player, the oscillating sound waves and oscillating neurons exist but poor old Mozart's sonata does not. The *sonata* is just a convenient fiction for the concrete entities involved in modifying the neuronal networks of the music-lover. If you enjoy being tickled and I tickle you under the arm - the *tickling* doesn't exist.
            What exists are the tickler [me] and the changing brain of he who is tickled [you] as the changing pleasurable modalities of your  the bodybrain respond to the movements of my tickling fingers.   ;-)

            Chris:
            Consciousness, being an agent of mediation,
             
            Jud:
            It is the conscious, mediating  human who exists - not some stowaway refugee medieval harum-scarum named  *consciousness.*
             
             
            Chris:
            Consciousness is not necessary for survival,
            one can live like an ape off instincts and limited awareness of self if you
            wish, but to live in a collective DESIGNED by interactions of awareness with
            context, and so a mediating collective, means the necessity for the label of
            'consciousness'.
             
            Jud:
            *Consciousness* is not necessary for anything [man nor beast] for it is a fiction.
            What is necessary for in humans to exist in the full sense of the term is to be conscious members of the human species.
             
            Chris:
            As I have repeatedly suggested, consciousness is a PRODUCT, an ARTIFACT, of
            neural dynamics and as such the realm of mediation and labelling is very
            much part of US. 'lower' levels of personal awareness seem to be expressed
            in lower neuron-dependent life forms but it appears to require high neural
            complexity to 'link all of the dots' into some 24/7 sense of awareness (and
            so when we wake up we can continue where we left off when we went to sleep!)
             
            Jud:
            There is no *product* of neural dynamics.  What exists are dynamic neurons, which alter the way in which they exist in relation to other neurons.  The [human] producer and what you call *the product* are in fact the same entity, which has changed the way it exists in order to mediate the new ways in which is constantly reacting and adapting to intrinsic and extrinsic impingement.

            Chris:
            The hierarchy of neural development allows for the oscillation dynamics
            mentioned earlier operating at the 'top' end of the neural pyramid. (and so
            variations in the timing can accumulate to elicit a distinct 'persona' in
            the individual's overall behaviour - all POSSIBLE personas are part of our
            genetic heritage but LOCAL CONTEXT can then 'select' a bias to one over the
            others - and that includes a nominalist perspective vs a non-nominalist
            (recurse that dichotomy to get the full spectrum of types ;-) --- although
            the more charismatic types favour asserting their context as 'THE' context
             
            Jud:
             
            Rephrase the above into a *metaphysical free-zone* and you might start getting somewhere with your theories.
            You are undoubtedly extremely intelligent and desrve sucess - drop the ontological duality bit and you have *take-off* Proceed in the way you are and you will be forgotten as *just another transcendentalist turning ineffectual cognitive somersaults to make metaphysics work.*
            We have had 3-thousand years of metaphysics Chris and where has it got us?
            Please change Chris.  With your brilliant abilities you would make a outstanding eliminative material neurologist and make real headway.
             
            Cheers,
             
            Jud.
          • William D. Tallman
            Hello all, This post is opportunistic. The fact of the post to which it is a reply is largely incidental, except that it is substantial enough to warrant a
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello all,

              This post is opportunistic. The fact of the post to which it is a reply
              is largely incidental, except that it is substantial enough to warrant a
              response. No judgment or criticism of the poster is intended.


              On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:59:18PM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:
              > Jud,
              >
              > Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the abstraction of
              > qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
              > Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and out
              > will come better understanding of the particular, local.

              Nouns are beingness. Verbs are doinginess. Beingness and doingness
              don't generally map to differentiation and integration, I think.

              > If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
              > producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
              > patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations across
              > left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
              > deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
              > neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the elements of
              > the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
              > elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is derived
              > from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS in
              > that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the long
              > term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
              > expressions.

              Oscillations?

              > The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness', the discrete, and
              > without that there would be no consciousness; the moment you say "I think
              > that" etc so you have differentiated yourself from all else - BUT that focus
              > on differentiating is a focus on moving past the whole and into parts
              > analysis - IOW we move to internal analysis of 'something' and in doing so
              > can suspend holistic interactions with 'reality'; we become mechanistic but
              > in doing so we also become VERY precise in identifications etc that we can
              > then re-integrate to be 'mindlessly' whole again - letting context push our
              > buttons. As such there is a dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
              > dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (in linguistics
              > the term is nominalisation (verb to noun)/de-nominalisation (noun to verb))
              >
              > This movement guarantees the creation of paradox in that it is our
              > consciousness that creates such perspectives - and that's fine as long as we
              > know what is going on ;-) - the price of precision is the occasional paradox
              > (and so the examples of this XOR/AND dynamic in
              > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
              >
              > Differentiating is a fundamental part of our being, it is built-in to our
              > neurology, in that it enables the PRECISE identification of patterns 'out
              > there' (as well as 'in here'). With differentiation comes a DELAY factor
              > that reflects the actions of awareness in the processing of information
              > prior to the habituation to that information in the form of symbol and habit
              > formations - upon which the delay, and awareness, disappear.

              Not differentiation. The mechanism is approximately "flagging". The
              delay factor has its own source.

              > With the presence of delay comes the label of 'consciousness' compared to
              > the lack of that delay that comes with the label of
              > 'unconscious'/'instinctive'. - ( and so the presence of the serial/parallel
              > dichotomy that accompanies the mechanistic/organic dichotomy - both
              > dichotomies being context-sensitive examples of differentiating/integrating)

              Statement is approximate. Explanation is.... ?

              > Without understanding these simple, and so basic dynamics of the brain, all
              > philosophy is fiction. That said, even supposedly 'neuron-aware' people like
              > the Churchlands etc are still too focused on the trees to 'grok' the forest.
              >
              > Consciousness is to neurology what a Mozart sonata is to the CD encoding it
              > - both consciousness and that sonata come out of the 'playing' - be it
              > neural dynamics in the brain or laser dynamics in the CD the mediation
              > involved elicits what we hear/see/feel/reason.

              Nice try. You've missed several levels of process here.

              > Consciousness, being an agent of mediation, is not necessary for survival,
              > one can live like an ape off instincts and limited awareness of self if you
              > wish, but to live in a collective DESIGNED by interactions of awareness with
              > context, and so a mediating collective, means the necessity for the label of
              > 'consciousness'.
              >
              > As I have repeatedly suggested, consciousness is a PRODUCT, an ARTIFACT, of
              > neural dynamics and as such the realm of mediation and labelling is very
              > much part of US. 'lower' levels of personal awareness seem to be expressed
              > in lower neuron-dependent life forms but it appears to require high neural
              > complexity to 'link all of the dots' into some 24/7 sense of awareness (and
              > so when we wake up we can continue where we left off when we went to sleep!)

              Close.

              > The hierarchy of neural development allows for the oscillation dynamics
              > mentioned earlier operating at the 'top' end of the neural pyramid. (and so
              > variations in the timing can accumulate to elicit a distinct 'persona' in
              > the individual's overall behaviour - all POSSIBLE personas are part of our
              > genetic heritage but LOCAL CONTEXT can then 'select' a bias to one over the
              > others - and that includes a nominalist perspective vs a non-nominalist
              > (recurse that dichotomy to get the full spectrum of types ;-) --- although
              > the more charismatic types favour asserting their context as 'THE' context
              > ;-))
              >
              >
              > Chris.

              I'll have to look at the site cited here, but this sounds to me like a
              good amount of pseudo-newage speculation tossed against the wall, and
              the result used to hang some well-recognized (by the author) but
              misunderstood research-based conclusions.

              At this stage of the game, it's probably what one can expect, as people
              struggle to grasp the objective reality of what for the entire length of
              current human history and custom has been one of those things of which
              it was often said: "There are some things mankind was never meant to
              know". The great institutions of our culture were never slow in
              stepping in with authoritative (yeah, they did the authoring..) sounding
              claims of definitive explanation.

              What is essentially wrong with all these approaches to understanding is
              the failure to grasp an intuitively obvious but devilishly difficult to
              demonstrate insight into the nature of things. So, I'll give it a shot
              here:

              The fundamental constant of the Universe at every level is Change. The
              notion of the absolutely homogenous state is an intellectual artifact
              that never occurs in the wild. Because that is so, change and motion
              are the universal constants.

              These two constants are what they are, with no justification or
              explanation or significance, until they are perceived by a being with an
              agenda to supply these attributes. In this case, the being is h sap sap
              and the agenda is survival. The fundamental of consciousness is the
              ability to store and organize received (sensory) data, which allows for
              the *re*cognition of some perceived set of changes and motions. This
              recognition yields the awareness of Process.

              Process is a recognized organization of change and motion. It requires
              the attribute of memory. It allows for the opportunity to prepare.

              Note that in the preceeding three paragraphs I went from the essence of
              the Big Bang (or whatever it finally turns out to be) to a description
              of the state of animate life typified by Class Mammalia. The point is
              this: complexity proceeds from simplicity; from the simplest rules the
              greatest variety of possibility arises. This point is demonstrable
              mathematically (Stephan Wolfram: NKS), and is intuitively obvious once
              pointed out. An example is the game of checkers; checkers rules are far
              simpler than chess rules, yet checkers turns out to be by far the more
              profound game (checkers champs routinely beat chess champs, not vice
              versa).

              So complicated explanations for the nature and actions of the brain/mind
              are not only not necessary, they are counterproductive.

              All that is required is to note that the cerebrum (cerebral cortex)
              turns out to be the area where sensory data is correlated with memory
              data and lower level assessment and flagging. The purpose is to
              construct a model of the environment that enables prediction of "What
              comes next". The payoff for this effort is the opportunity to prepare,
              to "ramp up", which is probably the single most useful survival tactic.
              It is simply the ability to recognize a process in action and to have
              the opportunity to get in synch (if you will) so that appropriate action
              (or lack thereof) is taken to promote survival.

              This is evident to some increasing extent as one scans the Class
              Mammalia from the primitive to the sophisticated, and comes to fruition
              as it defines the core skill of humanity. All that is required is to
              look once one knows what one is seeing.

              Now, this provides a natural separation for the brain and the mind. The
              mechanics of neural function are part of the brain. The function of the
              brain in its entirity is the mind. That said, we can make a few
              observations.

              It's probably possible, at least in theory, to understand the function
              of the brain using the computer model. I think it's already clear that
              a binary digital assumption is inadequate, though some small number of
              states is probably a good call. The linear model of computing (Turing
              machine) is insufficient, as is a simple description such as massively
              parallel computing.

              We can use the concept of encryption to assess this subject. Encryption
              depends on the difficulty of recognition. Where recognition is not
              possible, encryption is absolute: the One Time Pad is unbreakable
              because it does not offer recognition; a single cognition is all that is
              available. Effectiveness of encoding increases with the difficulty of
              recognition and the relevance here is that it speaks to an issue we
              address here.

              That issue is: what is the limit of recognizability in terms of
              complexity? How complex a process is recognizable? At what point does
              a process fail to be recognized because it is too complex to be governed
              by what has been seen before? At that point, recognition of process
              fails, and witness of the new and unique begins.

              The primitive mechanisms of the brain are becoming better understood as
              time goes on. But like any complex constructs, mechanisms can be
              observed to have increasing amounts of complexity, increasing numbers
              and types of primitive mechanisms involved. The question for brain
              research becomes: at what point is a mechanism so complex that it fails
              be be recognized as such, and to the extent it is witnessed, it is
              conceived as an anomaly?

              At that point, the function of the brain, the manifestation of brain
              process, becomes the mind.

              At that point, a new game begins, and for our purposes, the rules for
              the mind are laid down. They are, appropriately enough, quite simple:
              Organize a representative construct of external reality and test it by
              comparing the predictions possible from that construct against the data
              received from the objective environment. The value system describes the
              usefulness of a given model according to the matches obtained by that
              comparison.

              Those simple rules give rise to the apparently infinite (actually,
              indeterminate) possibilities of the manifestation of the human mind. So
              now, instead of seeking the essence of the mind, it is relevant to chart
              the nature of the possibilities it creates/generates/provides.

              In short, the mind is a checker game, not a chess game.

              Comments?

              Bill Tallman


              Ummm... wonder if that last statement is a useful basis for another
              post. Perhaps so.
            • Chris Lofting
              I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy full of contradictions, distortions for the sake of argument etc etc. and not worthy of
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy full of
                contradictions, distortions for the sake of argument etc etc. and not worthy
                of further comment from me other than to say that the nominalist perspective
                is a weak one being ONE of the set of possible perspectives that emerge from
                differentiating/integrating. Simple. The dynamics across the elements of
                that dichotomy allow for nominalisation/de-nominalisation and indicate a
                basic property/method of our neurology and that of all other
                neuron-dependent life forms.



                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of gevans613@...
                > Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 2:45 AM
                > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Language Acquisition and Brain
                > Development
                >
                > In a message dated 02/01/2006 08:14:13 GMT Standard Time,
                > chrislofting@... writes:
                >
                > Jud,
                > Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the
                > abstraction of
                > qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs).
                > Period.
                > Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and
                > out
                > will come better understanding of the particular, local.
                >
                > Jud:
                > No. Nouns and verbs and all the other signals we use to communicate are
                > the way that we consciously
                > transfer notions of the way WE are existing at the time the transfer is
                > made to the conscious human recipient of
                > those signals and signs in order that THEY then exist in a modality of
                > being aware of how we were existing at the time the transfer was made. The
                > *meaning* is manifested in the changes rendered in the way the addressee
                > exists after he or she has received the codes and converted them into
                > meaningful ways of neurologically existing.
                > The codes [the nouns and verbs] have no INTRINSIC meaning - the meaning is
                > what the human brain extrapolates from the codes.
                > The plate fastened to the hull of the unmanned spaceship blasted into the
                > far areas of the universe with the human greeting words thereon is utterly
                > meaningless unless those words are on day read by a human or an alien who
                > has *cracked* the codes in order to understand them.
                > The meaning and understandability lies with the human and the alien
                > semiotician NOT the actual codes.
                > When a human looks at a tree - the *treeness* and the word *tree* does not
                > lie somewhere in the branches or under the bark of the *tree* - it lies in
                > the human neurological networks. The tree simply exists as it exists -
                > completely unmeaningfully in the spatial position in which it happens to
                > be. The noun and the verb lie as outlines of dried ink particles - bereft
                > of any *meaning* Until a human being who is neurologically *tooled up* to
                > extract meaning from the meaningless symbols converts the shapes on the
                > page into changes in the patterns in the electrochemical biomass of his
                > neurological reticulation.
                >
                > Chris:
                > If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
                > producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
                > patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations across
                > left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
                > deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
                > neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the elements
                > of
                > the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
                > elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is derived
                > from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS
                > in
                > that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the
                > long
                > term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
                > expressions.
                >
                > Jud:
                > See above - aural signals work in exactly the same way - there is no
                > intrinsic *meaning* to be found in the notes.
                > The *meaning* is to be found in the oscillating brain NOT in the brain
                > oscillations across
                > left/right, front/back of the brain - for they do not exist - only the
                > oscillating neurons exist down to a pair of neurons
                > deriving the exclusive OR.
                >
                > Like all metaphysicians of the brain you keep insisting that there are
                > some weirdo non-material doo-dahs called *oscillations*
                > which exist. I suppose you believe that the *twinkling* of Xmas tree
                > lights exist, rather than what ACTUALLY exists which is the twinkling xmas
                > tree lights? It is precisely this medieval attitude which is bringing
                > psychology, psychiatry and some versions of neurology into so much
                > disrepute, which will ultimately end up in the loss of jobs in the
                > profession throughout huge swathes of the medical and academic
                > establishment.
                >
                > Chris:
                > The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',
                >
                >
                > Jud:
                > *Thingness* does not exist - only material entities exist.
                > Ship me a crate of *thingness* to my address and I will alert the BBC and
                > the American media immediately - I can be your agent [(10%] and I promise
                > you international stardom. ;-)
                >
                >
                > Chris The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',... the
                > discrete, and
                > without that there would be no consciousness; ...
                >
                > Jud:
                > There is ALREADY no *consciousness* only the conscious, differentiating
                > Chris exists.
                >
                >
                > Chris:
                > the moment you say "I think that" etc so you have differentiated yourself
                > from all else - BUT that focus
                > on differentiating is a focus on moving past the whole and into parts
                > analysis -
                >
                > Jud:
                > The moment you say *I think that...* you exist in different modalities of
                > cogitating, your brain nets change
                > their configuration and enter into a comparative modality of analysing
                > intrinsically and extrinsically derived *meaning.*
                > The *focus* or *focusing* does not exist - only he or she who focuses
                > exists.
                >
                >
                >
                > Chris:
                > IOW we move to internal analysis of 'something' and in doing so
                > can suspend holistic interactions with 'reality';
                >
                > Jud:
                > There is no *reality* it does not exist. What exists is that which is
                > real [you, me the tree,]
                > What exists is the *realising* you and me.
                >
                >
                > Chris:
                > we become mechanistic but in doing so we also become VERY precise in
                > identifications etc that we can
                > then re-integrate to be 'mindlessly' whole again - letting context push
                > our
                > buttons. As such there is a dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
                > dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (in
                > linguistics
                > the term is nominalisation (verb to noun)/de-nominalisation (noun to
                > verb))
                >
                > Jud:
                > No - we become very precise in identifying the way in which that which we
                > are identifying [say the tree] exists.
                > Identifications themselves do not exist. There is no *dynamic across the
                > mechanistic/organic
                > dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy* it does not
                > exist.
                > What exists is the dichotomising human brain - the *meaning* of words do
                > not exist - only the human wordifier and nominaliser exists in existential
                > modalities of *meaning something* and *nominalising something.*
                > There is no non-material *second-order or *higher-realm* of existence*
                > which is in some way *separate* or dichotomised from the brain-meat.
                >
                >
                >
                > Chris:
                > This movement guarantees the creation of paradox in that it is our
                > consciousness that creates such perspectives - and that's fine as long as
                > we
                > know what is going on ;-) - the price of precision is the occasional
                > paradox
                > (and so the examples of this XOR/AND dynamic in
                > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
                >
                > Jud:
                > *Perspectives, consciousness, paradoxes, precision,* are fictions -
                > useful abstractions
                > which are completely absent from the brain itself. Only the perspectival,
                > conscious, precise or imprecise brain exists
                > which sometimes is perplexed by seeing paradox. These fictions have no
                > place in science.
                >
                > Chris:
                > Differentiating is a fundamental part of our being,
                >
                > Jud:
                > We have no *being* or *Being* - we are a certain type of entity which we
                > call a *human* being a human.
                > Existence and *being do not exist - only that which exists as a certain
                > object and that which is a certain entity exists.
                > *Differentiating* does not exist - only the differentiating human exists.
                >
                >
                > Chris: [differentiating] it is built-in to our neurology, in that it
                > enables the PRECISE identification of patterns 'out
                > there' (as well as 'in here'). With differentiation comes a DELAY factor
                > that reflects the actions of awareness in the processing of information
                > prior to the habituation to that information in the form of symbol and
                > habit
                > formations - upon which the delay, and awareness, disappear.
                >
                > With the presence of delay comes the label of 'consciousness' compared to
                > the lack of that delay that comes with the label of
                > 'unconscious'/'instinctive'. - ( and so the presence of the
                > serial/parallel
                > dichotomy that accompanies the mechanistic/organic dichotomy - both
                > dichotomies being context-sensitive examples of
                > differentiating/integrating)
                >
                > Without understanding these simple, and so basic dynamics of the brain,
                > all
                > philosophy is fiction. That said, even supposedly 'neuron-aware' people
                > like
                > the Churchlands etc are still too focused on the trees to 'grok' the
                > forest.
                >
                > Jud:
                > No, Chris all YOUR abstract-dependant fiction-conditional kind of
                > philosophy is fiction both in conception and application.
                > It did not need the Churchlands to work that one out.
                > The Churchlands know all about *forrests* and like me they realise that
                > *forrests do not exist.
                > What exists are individual trees grouped in a position of spatial
                > contingency-
                > *to be grouped in a position of spatial contingency* does not exist - what
                > exists are the individuate trees grouped in a position of spatial
                > contingency
                >
                > Chris:
                > Consciousness is to neurology what a Mozart sonata is to the CD encoding
                > it
                > - both consciousness and that sonata come out of the 'playing' - be it
                > neural dynamics in the brain or laser dynamics in the CD the mediation
                > involved elicits what we hear/see/feel/reason.
                >
                >
                > Jud:
                > Neither *consciousness* nor *neurology* exist. What exists is the neuron-
                > equipped human
                > decoding the sounds produced from playing the CD and converting them into
                > meaningful modifications in those areas of their neuronal net which
                > mediates such signals into pleasurable or unpleasurable existential
                > modifications.
                > The human, the CD, the CD player, the oscillating sound waves and
                > oscillating neurons exist but poor old Mozart's sonata does not. The
                > *sonata* is just a convenient fiction for the concrete entities involved
                > in modifying the neuronal networks of the music-lover. If you enjoy being
                > tickled and I tickle you under the arm - the *tickling* doesn't exist.
                > What exists are the tickler [me] and the changing brain of he who is
                > tickled [you] as the changing pleasurable modalities of your the
                > bodybrain respond to the movements of my tickling fingers. ;-)
                >
                > Chris:
                > Consciousness, being an agent of mediation,
                >
                > Jud:
                > It is the conscious, mediating human who exists - not some stowaway
                > refugee medieval harum-scarum named *consciousness.*
                >
                >
                > Chris:
                > Consciousness is not necessary for survival,
                > one can live like an ape off instincts and limited awareness of self if
                > you
                > wish, but to live in a collective DESIGNED by interactions of awareness
                > with
                > context, and so a mediating collective, means the necessity for the label
                > of
                > 'consciousness'.
                >
                > Jud:
                > *Consciousness* is not necessary for anything [man nor beast] for it is a
                > fiction.
                > What is necessary for in humans to exist in the full sense of the term is
                > to be conscious members of the human species.
                >
                > Chris:
                > As I have repeatedly suggested, consciousness is a PRODUCT, an ARTIFACT,
                > of
                > neural dynamics and as such the realm of mediation and labelling is very
                > much part of US. 'lower' levels of personal awareness seem to be expressed
                > in lower neuron-dependent life forms but it appears to require high neural
                > complexity to 'link all of the dots' into some 24/7 sense of awareness
                > (and
                > so when we wake up we can continue where we left off when we went to
                > sleep!)
                >
                > Jud:
                > There is no *product* of neural dynamics. What exists are dynamic
                > neurons, which alter the way in which they exist in relation to other
                > neurons. The [human] producer and what you call *the product* are in fact
                > the same entity, which has changed the way it exists in order to mediate
                > the new ways in which is constantly reacting and adapting to intrinsic and
                > extrinsic impingement.
                >
                > Chris:
                > The hierarchy of neural development allows for the oscillation dynamics
                > mentioned earlier operating at the 'top' end of the neural pyramid. (and
                > so
                > variations in the timing can accumulate to elicit a distinct 'persona' in
                > the individual's overall behaviour - all POSSIBLE personas are part of our
                > genetic heritage but LOCAL CONTEXT can then 'select' a bias to one over
                > the
                > others - and that includes a nominalist perspective vs a non-nominalist
                > (recurse that dichotomy to get the full spectrum of types ;-) --- although
                > the more charismatic types favour asserting their context as 'THE' context
                >
                > Jud:
                >
                > Rephrase the above into a *metaphysical free-zone* and you might start
                > getting somewhere with your theories.
                > You are undoubtedly extremely intelligent and desrve sucess - drop the
                > ontological duality bit and you have *take-off* Proceed in the way you are
                > and you will be forgotten as *just another transcendentalist turning
                > ineffectual cognitive somersaults to make metaphysics work.*
                > We have had 3-thousand years of metaphysics Chris and where has it got us?
                > Please change Chris. With your brilliant abilities you would make a
                > outstanding eliminative material neurologist and make real headway.
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > Jud.
                >
                > ________________________________
                >
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                >
                >
                > * Visit your group "MindBrain
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain> " on the web.
                >
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > MindBrain-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MindBrain-
                > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                >
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
              • gevans613@aol.com
                In a message dated 03/01/2006 08:15:05 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@ozemail.com.au writes: I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 03/01/2006 08:15:05 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@... writes:
                  I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy full of
                  contradictions, distortions for the sake of argument etc etc. and not worthy
                  of further comment from me other than to say that the nominalist perspective
                  is a weak one being ONE of the set of possible perspectives that emerge from
                  differentiating/integrating. Simple. The dynamics across the elements of
                  that dichotomy allow for nominalisation/de-nominalisation and indicate a
                  basic property/method of our neurology and that of all other
                  neuron-dependent life forms.
                  Jud:
                  You answer legitimate criticism with a spate of metaphysical gobbledegook.
                  You are unable to provide ONE SINGLE JOT of evidence for you fantasies.
                  My offer remains on the table - come up with some evidence - just one tiny  of the metaphysical ignis fatuus
                  you claim exists will do,  and Nobel Committee bound,  and phial in hand - I will board the next available plane to Stockholm
                   
                  NOTHING *emerges from *differentiating/integrating,* because *differentiating/integrating* doesn't exist
                  to *differentiate or integrate* anything. As Bill Tallman has just succinctly made clear, verbs are doinginess.  Beingness and doingness don't generally map to differentiation and integration. He might have added: *Don't map to anything at all.*

                  There is NO *dynamics across the elements of that dichotomy,* because abstract nouns like *dichotomy* don't exist — what exists is the object/objects which is/are dichotomised NOT the dichotomy itself. As M. Sur and J.L. Rubenstein  pointed out in the science article posted by Robert:
                   
                   *The cerebral cortex of the human brain is a sheet of about 10 billion neurons divided into discrete subdivisions or areas that process particular aspects of sensation, movement, and cognition.*
                  (Science 2005 310:805)
                   
                   
                  But the DIVISION of the 10 billion neurons doesn't exist - what exists are the 10 billion divided neurons.
                   
                   When you cut an orange in half  - it is the two halves of the orange that exist  - and NOT *the dichotomy* or *the cutting of the orange in half.* You seem completely unable to comprehend this ontological fact and pepper your papers  with more hypostatisation than Hypatia of Alexandria.
                   
                  You can rattle your shamanistic seed-gourd of reification and flick your sacred water-drops abstraction over the hoi polloi as much as you like Chris - but what is real [the human brain] will never be replaced by the semantic congeries with which you populate the crackled world of your metaphysical imagination. *Mind* is securely tied around your neck like an albatross - you have internalised the idea of *mind* and *consciousness*  and self-brainwashed yourself into the fantasy that it actually exists as a *product* or *artefact* of *the neurology*.
                   
                  There is no *property* or *method* of our *neurology,* as I am tired of telling you.  You employ meaningless, imprecise, unscientific language gleaned from the reopened refuse-pits of medieval, monkish masturbatoriums.
                   
                  Your present thinking comprises a virtual museum of the metaphysical  imagination, which is doubtless of great interest to students of the history of psychiatry and philosophy of *mind.* That's why I love reading your stuff  so much - it is like a linguistic  time-machine [its seats upholstered in the finest silks]  that allows us to revisit the historical realms of how people used to think long ago and far away, when the world was young.  ;-)
                   
                  I wish you success with your *archeology of pyschiatry* research, and more power to your quill! - I love good science-fiction!
                   
                  Cheers,
                   
                  Jud.
                   
                • Chris Lofting
                  Hi Bill, ... Yes they do. I suggest you go through the IDM material and the associated references/further reading. Simply put, differentiating focuses on
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Bill,

                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > Behalf Of William D. Tallman
                    > Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2006 9:12 AM
                    > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Language Acquisition and Brain
                    > Development
                    >
                    > Hello all,
                    >
                    > This post is opportunistic. The fact of the post to which it is a reply
                    > is largely incidental, except that it is substantial enough to warrant a
                    > response. No judgment or criticism of the poster is intended.
                    >
                    >
                    > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 05:59:18PM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:
                    > > Jud,
                    > >
                    > > Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the
                    > abstraction of
                    > > qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
                    > > Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and out
                    > > will come better understanding of the particular, local.
                    >
                    > Nouns are beingness. Verbs are doinginess. Beingness and doingness
                    > don't generally map to differentiation and integration, I think.
                    >

                    Yes they do. I suggest you go through the IDM material and the associated
                    references/further reading. Simply put, differentiating focuses on assertion
                    of a point and so identification of a thing, aka an object. Integrating
                    focuses on linking points and so on the space inbetween, as well as within,
                    objects.

                    The intro page is http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
                    (this is not 'new age' but it does explain how 'new age' perspectives can
                    develop and how they are held to be 'meaningful' despite what the
                    organisation of science says about them)

                    For formal definitions of differentiating/integrating see the top of
                    http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html


                    > > If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
                    > > producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
                    > > patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations
                    > across
                    > > left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
                    > > deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
                    > > neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the
                    > elements of
                    > > the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
                    > > elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is
                    > derived
                    > > from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS
                    > in
                    > > that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the
                    > long
                    > > term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
                    > > expressions.
                    >
                    > Oscillations?
                    >

                    Our brain is electrical and neural activity elicits oscillations across our
                    brains. The TIMING of these oscillations can have dramatic affects on the
                    general 'colour' of our thinking - see such research as:

                    http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

                    <Snip>
                    >
                    > I'll have to look at the site cited here, but this sounds to me like a
                    > good amount of pseudo-newage speculation tossed against the wall, and
                    > the result used to hang some well-recognized (by the author) but
                    > misunderstood research-based conclusions.
                    >

                    There is no 'pseudo-newage' speculation here - we focus on the source of all
                    meaning regardless whether it is 'real' or 'imagined'.

                    > At this stage of the game, it's probably what one can expect, as people
                    > struggle to grasp the objective reality of what for the entire length of
                    > current human history and custom has been one of those things of which
                    > it was often said: "There are some things mankind was never meant to
                    > know". The great institutions of our culture were never slow in
                    > stepping in with authoritative (yeah, they did the authoring..) sounding
                    > claims of definitive explanation.
                    >
                    > What is essentially wrong with all these approaches to understanding is
                    > the failure to grasp an intuitively obvious but devilishly difficult to
                    > demonstrate insight into the nature of things. So, I'll give it a shot
                    > here:
                    >
                    > The fundamental constant of the Universe at every level is Change. The
                    > notion of the absolutely homogenous state is an intellectual artifact
                    > that never occurs in the wild. Because that is so, change and motion
                    > are the universal constants.
                    >

                    All covered in the IDM material. If you are interested in change then you
                    may be interested in the IDM analysis of the ancient chinese book of change,
                    The I Ching, where I focus on the non-changing aspects that make the I Ching
                    the I Ching! ;-) see:

                    http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

                    Also see such pages as 'wave dichotomies' and how from the dynamic we
                    extract the considered static etc and make a hybrid reality:

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

                    This is also covered in the focus on the brain as a high/low band filter:

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

                    This static/dynamic focus is also present in our logic:

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


                    > These two constants are what they are, with no justification or
                    > explanation or significance, until they are perceived by a being with an
                    > agenda to supply these attributes. In this case, the being is h sap sap
                    > and the agenda is survival. The fundamental of consciousness is the
                    > ability to store and organize received (sensory) data, which allows for
                    > the *re*cognition of some perceived set of changes and motions. This
                    > recognition yields the awareness of Process.
                    >
                    > Process is a recognized organization of change and motion. It requires
                    > the attribute of memory. It allows for the opportunity to prepare.
                    >

                    The development of the neurology and associated senses allows for 'reactive'
                    states that through self-referencing move into 'proactive' states where
                    local context dynamics have been adapted-to in the form of instincts that
                    allow context to the PUSH a life form. The feedback involved allows for the
                    consolidation of the instincts to a degree where a 'map' of the context is
                    internalised and so allows for a more proactive push to pre-empt the
                    context.

                    The movement from a predominatingly REACTIVE state to a PROACTIVE state
                    requires the development of good mediation skills in the refining of
                    instincts/habits.

                    Once the skills have been refined to a usable degree so the mediation
                    'disappears' and we fall back on 'autopilot' - Libet's work covers this
                    dynamic reasonably well.

                    The brain's adaptation to 'reality' has been in the creation of asymmetric
                    structures focused on WHAT(differentiating, thingness, objects,
                    discrete)/WHERE(integrating, needs a coordinate system etc - focus on the
                    space in-between 'things' etc) processing.

                    Combined with an attention system this allows for high precision
                    differentiating using self-referencing (where the XOR of differentiating
                    cannot be implemented neurologically WITHOUT two neurons feeding-back).

                    Analysis of that methodology gives us a set of categories of qualities we
                    find applied all the way 'up', from the neuron dynamics to our consciousness
                    and its making of labels to fit universals to local contexts.

                    These qualities cover the set of POSSIBLE meanings we have access-to to form
                    composite meanings that we then label to differentiate one specialist
                    context from another when using the SAME set of qualities.

                    There is no 'complexity' here - it is simple recursion of
                    differentiate/integrate that gives us qualities usable to describe reality.
                    What develops from that recursion are the complex EXPRESSIONS we use in
                    LOCAL context dynamics.

                    The development of consciousness allows for the use of mediation to re-label
                    the universal qualities as they are linked to local contexts; as such, all
                    specialisations are metaphors for what the brain deals with - patterns of
                    differentiating/integrating. It is this common ground that allows us to use
                    one specialisation as a source of analogy/metaphor in fleshing-out another
                    specialisation; same qualities, different contexts and so labels.

                    A property of the increased differentiation is the creation of borders that
                    let loose what lives on borders, complexity/chaos dynamics. With this
                    creation we have to learn discernment, quality control, to progress further
                    lest the species fragments into self-sufficient, self-contained, individuals
                    (the mindless drive of evolution, we all turn into sub-species)

                    Given the IDM qualities, so all we can know is known; but in GENERAL. LOCAL
                    context then adds 'colour' to these universal qualities. Thus all of our
                    models, our ontologies, are PARTICULARS and as such are different
                    perspectives of the GENERAL. IOW the IDM work laysdown the template out of
                    which come our specialist views. As such, we can trace the seeds of of our
                    consciousness to the beginnings of the universe -
                    http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html

                    Given that we can map out the qualities associated with meaning, and given
                    that those qualities are derived from adaptation to context (the neurology
                    adapts to 'out there' by developing the differentiate/integrate mappings
                    etc) so our maps become 'reflections' of 'out there' to a degree we can
                    pre-empt reality and so predict outcomes etc.

                    Chris.
                  • William D. Tallman
                    ... Well, at least there is some source of sanity here. I probably should have snipped the above, but then someone who doesn t have the context would miss the
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:57:55AM -0500, gevans613@... wrote:
                      > In a message dated 03/01/2006 08:15:05 GMT Standard Time,
                      > chrislofting@... writes:
                      >
                      >> I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy
                      >> full of contradictions, distortions for the sake of argument etc
                      >> etc. and not worthy of further comment from me other than to say
                      >> that the nominalist perspective is a weak one being ONE of the set
                      >> of possible perspectives that emerge from
                      >> differentiating/integrating. Simple. The dynamics across the
                      >> elements of that dichotomy allow for nominalisation/de-nominalisation
                      >> and indicate a basic property/method of our neurology and that of all
                      >> other neuron-dependent life forms.
                      > Jud:
                      > You answer legitimate criticism with a spate of metaphysical gobbledegook.
                      > You are unable to provide ONE SINGLE JOT of evidence for you fantasies.
                      > My offer remains on the table - come up with some evidence - just one tiny
                      > of the metaphysical ignis fatuus
                      > you claim exists will do, and Nobel Committee bound, and phial in hand - I
                      > will board the next available plane to Stockholm
                      >
                      > NOTHING *emerges from *differentiating/integrating,* because
                      > *differentiating/integrating* doesn't exist
                      > to *differentiate or integrate* anything. As Bill Tallman has just
                      > succinctly made clear, verbs are doinginess. Beingness and doingness
                      > don't generally map to differentiation and integration. He might have
                      > added: *Don't map to anything at all.*
                      >
                      > There is NO *dynamics across the elements of that dichotomy,* because
                      > abstract nouns like *dichotomy* don't exist ??? what exists is the
                      > object/objects which is/are dichotomised NOT the dichotomy itself. As
                      > M. Sur and J.L. Rubenstein pointed out in the science article
                      > posted by Robert:
                      >
                      > *The cerebral cortex of the human brain is a sheet of about 10 billion
                      > neurons divided into discrete subdivisions or areas that process
                      > particular aspects of sensation, movement, and cognition.* (Science
                      > 2005 310:805)
                      >
                      >
                      > But the DIVISION of the 10 billion neurons doesn't exist - what exists
                      > are the 10 billion divided neurons.
                      >
                      > When you cut an orange in half - it is the two halves of the orange
                      > that exist - and NOT *the dichotomy* or *the cutting of the orange
                      > in half.* You seem completely unable to comprehend this ontological
                      > fact and pepper your papers with more hypostatisation than Hypatia
                      > of Alexandria.
                      >
                      > You can rattle your shamanistic seed-gourd of reification and flick
                      > your sacred water-drops abstraction over the hoi polloi as much as you
                      > like Chris - but what is real [the human brain] will never be replaced
                      > by the semantic congeries with which you populate the crackled world
                      > of your metaphysical imagination. *Mind* is securely tied around your
                      > neck like an albatross - you have internalised the idea of *mind* and
                      > *consciousness* and self-brainwashed yourself into the fantasy that
                      > it actually exists as a *product* or *artefact* of *the neurology*.
                      >
                      > There is no *property* or *method* of our *neurology,* as I am tired
                      > of telling you. You employ meaningless, imprecise, unscientific
                      > language gleaned from the reopened refuse-pits of medieval, monkish
                      > masturbatoriums.
                      >
                      > Your present thinking comprises a virtual museum of the metaphysical
                      > imagination, which is doubtless of great interest to students of the
                      > history of psychiatry and philosophy of *mind.* That's why I love
                      > reading your stuff so much - it is like a linguistic time-machine
                      > [its seats upholstered in the finest silks] that allows us to
                      > revisit the historical realms of how people used to think long ago and
                      > far away, when the world was young. ;-)
                      >
                      > I wish you success with your *archeology of pyschiatry* research, and
                      > more power to your quill! - I love good science-fiction!
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      >
                      > Jud.

                      Well, at least there is some source of sanity here. I probably should
                      have snipped the above, but then someone who doesn't have the context
                      would miss the remarkable difference between the OP and this response.

                      I would suggest to Chris that if he can't explain his ideas without
                      technical terms, he really should take another look at how well he
                      understands what he's trying to communicate. Simplicity is not always
                      possible: Feynman was once asked to explain his Nobel winning work in
                      25 words or less, to which he responded (to the effect that) if he could
                      do that, it wouldn't be worth a Nobel Prize. OTOH, Einstein on Special
                      Relativity got a response he liked from a NYT reporter: "The universe
                      has no hitching post." Einstein thought for a moment and simply said
                      yes. So sometimes simplicity is possible, and sometimes not.

                      As far as oscillations are concerned, that is the last thing one would
                      want to observe in brain function. They are the mechanism of such
                      things as epileptic seizures, etc.

                      Chris needs to check out where the ground connections are in his
                      theories. Groundless speculation is entertaining, but that's about all
                      it is. There was a time when that was all one could do, but no longer.

                      We now know stuff about the physical mechanisms behind the mind, and if
                      thinking about the mind is not securely grounded in what we know, it is
                      only fantasy. Jud suggests that such activities are best suited to a
                      masturbatorium. Robert Heinlein has one of his characters (Lazarus
                      Long) observe that such things should be done in private, and one should
                      wash one's hands afterword. Heinlein was referring to religion, but the
                      same thing applies here, I think.

                      Jud observes that Chris' command of the language is extraordinary, and I
                      agree. But language is intended for the conveyance of substance, though
                      what that might be is not specified; honesty suggests that labels are
                      appropriate, and the label here is misleading at best.

                      Now, having said all this of Chris, it's not exactly fair to tar him
                      with egregious error here. There is altogether too much of this sort of
                      thinking and writing still extant, and still being produced. There is a
                      reason for this, I think: there is evidently a demand for that sort of
                      thing!

                      It has been said that current generations in western civilization retain
                      a strong influence of the memes of institutional religion. One of those
                      is that ultimate explanations come only from religion; restated: There
                      are some things mankind was never meant to know!. Whatever else can be
                      said of this, and there is a plenitude of important things to say, memes
                      (Dawkinsian constructs) are anywhere from difficult to impossible to
                      modify.

                      Current generations appear to be torn between the realization that man
                      *can* intelligently provide for himself (science, et al), and the
                      apparency, often all too arrogantly fostered, that they themselves
                      cannot comprehend how this is done. Adding insult to injury here is the
                      everpresent assertion that they must be too stupid to do so because they
                      don't automatically accept the dicta of "Science".

                      So on one hand there is much that obviously "works", and on the other
                      there's all this stuff they can't understand. The result is that they
                      sometimes tend to look with awe upon those who apparently can. A
                      traditional game, then, is to sling technical sounding vocabulary with
                      enough confidence so that others think it means something; the result is
                      (sometimes grudging) accord of status by others.

                      Academics have been known to indulge in this sort of behavior, and some
                      scientists make themselves notable by doing so. But academics and
                      scientists are known to their peers only by their work, not their
                      verbage. Lay people often do not realize this, and buy in to the
                      authoritative sounding pronouncements that some of these people issue.

                      Which casts, in the minds of many, Science in the same role as Religion.
                      In that regard, they are not wrong. Science is all too often Scientism,
                      which is a religion that binds the "flock" to the thus deified
                      Scientist. And of course, the same thing is true of academia, though
                      the coined word is awkward: Academism? The result? Understandably,
                      there are those who say "A pox on all your houses!!".

                      All of which is to suggest that Chris is indulging, however
                      unintentionally, in a cultural game that does not accomplish what we
                      would suppose that he intends.

                      So, to Chris: I've put down a couple of statements already in this
                      forum. Pick one and pull it apart, and then offer substantive critizism
                      to which a response in kind is possible. Otherwise, all you are
                      offering here are hurled slabs of opinion obviously intended as lectures
                      to which no response is possible.

                      If you can't do that, then you will have demonstrated here that current
                      assessment of your contributions are in fact correct.

                      Now, all that said, the one thing that you can always do without any
                      loss of respect is to ask questions. I would welcome a set of critical
                      questions of what I've written here. But beware: questions that are
                      genuinely meant as requests for elaboration and explanation are one
                      thing. Questions that are obvious repudiations without substance are
                      quite another, and will be dealt with accordingly.

                      Okay, your clock is running ;)

                      Bill Tallman
                    • William D. Tallman
                      On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:14:50AM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote: ... Okay, went through the material. Seems to me that the concepts of differentiation and
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:14:50AM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:

                        <snip>
                        > > Nouns are beingness. Verbs are doinginess. Beingness and doingness
                        > > don't generally map to differentiation and integration, I think.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Yes they do. I suggest you go through the IDM material and the associated
                        > references/further reading. Simply put, differentiating focuses on assertion
                        > of a point and so identification of a thing, aka an object. Integrating
                        > focuses on linking points and so on the space inbetween, as well as within,
                        > objects.
                        >
                        > The intro page is http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
                        > (this is not 'new age' but it does explain how 'new age' perspectives can
                        > develop and how they are held to be 'meaningful' despite what the
                        > organisation of science says about them)
                        >
                        > For formal definitions of differentiating/integrating see the top of
                        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html

                        Okay, went through the material.

                        Seems to me that the concepts of differentiation and integration used
                        here lack the plasticity to accommodate a sufficiently extensive domain,
                        such that they can render meaningful any range therein.

                        Yep, I can do that too.

                        There are a few very fundamental problems with that work. 1) The
                        foundations are very much too complex to support a meaningful structure.
                        The terms used are unfortunate because have already been appropriated in
                        another, apparently indirectly related, context: calculus. 2) The
                        foundations are not well enough established that they are made
                        accessible to any other approach than that laid out in your work. Not
                        good. That makes it intractable. 3) The overall approach, as I
                        suggested in my initial response, is inadequate. That is not a
                        criticism as much as it is an observation, however. The kind of
                        extensive complexification so dear to current and recent thinking does
                        not lead to insight, as much as it leads to mystification.

                        So I stand on my response. Start with clear and accessible bases, and
                        make sure that they are so from a variety of directions. That is
                        necessary because your work cannot otherwise be tested. You have
                        provided a construct that amounts to an implied hypothesis. Hypotheses
                        are not self-testing; they require duplication, not cloning.

                        In other words, if your thesis is valid, it can be verified
                        independantly: if your thesis is the only way to get where you've gotten
                        to, where you've gotten to can't be shown to exist. It requires getting
                        there another way, and further that the other way be generally mappable
                        on your way.

                        Second is the method chosen, which I've observed is the default.
                        Reality is far messier than can be contained in a bounded system. The
                        latest thinking is that complexity proceeds from simplicity,
                        approximately. There's a good deal more to it than that, but that's the
                        jist of it.

                        I've seen classical mathematics used to model all kinds of objective
                        reality, and occasionally it comes up with something useful. Calculus
                        applied to the bounded process of a given Project, and so forth. But in
                        every case I've seen, the objective reality modeled has to be bounded,
                        finite. It's unbounded reality that interests us, and algebra-based
                        thinking doesn't handle that well at all. Ummm... algebraic thinking is
                        that which proceeds from the assumption of useful equivalency. Such as
                        between metaphor and events, etc.

                        What happens usually is what is evident in your work. Complexification
                        requires the development of an ever more extensive argot, and finally
                        the argot-based structure takes over, leaving the reality it was
                        intended to model somewhere else.

                        <snip>
                        > > Oscillations?
                        > >
                        >
                        > Our brain is electrical and neural activity elicits oscillations across our
                        > brains. The TIMING of these oscillations can have dramatic affects on the
                        > general 'colour' of our thinking - see such research as:
                        >
                        > http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

                        Well, I think this is another case of mistaking the nature of the
                        mechanism. That happens a lot and is to be expected. Happens I know a
                        good deal about bipolarism, and there was a large amount of stuff that
                        was missing/unexplained in the notion of the "sticky" switch. Consult
                        Goodwin and Jameson for the details.

                        > <Snip>
                        > >
                        > > I'll have to look at the site cited here, but this sounds to me like a
                        > > good amount of pseudo-newage speculation tossed against the wall, and
                        > > the result used to hang some well-recognized (by the author) but
                        > > misunderstood research-based conclusions.
                        > >
                        >
                        > There is no 'pseudo-newage' speculation here - we focus on the source of all
                        > meaning regardless whether it is 'real' or 'imagined'.
                        >
                        > > At this stage of the game, it's probably what one can expect, as people
                        > > struggle to grasp the objective reality of what for the entire length of
                        > > current human history and custom has been one of those things of which
                        > > it was often said: "There are some things mankind was never meant to
                        > > know". The great institutions of our culture were never slow in
                        > > stepping in with authoritative (yeah, they did the authoring..) sounding
                        > > claims of definitive explanation.
                        > >
                        > > What is essentially wrong with all these approaches to understanding is
                        > > the failure to grasp an intuitively obvious but devilishly difficult to
                        > > demonstrate insight into the nature of things. So, I'll give it a shot
                        > > here:
                        > >
                        > > The fundamental constant of the Universe at every level is Change. The
                        > > notion of the absolutely homogenous state is an intellectual artifact
                        > > that never occurs in the wild. Because that is so, change and motion
                        > > are the universal constants.
                        > >
                        >
                        > All covered in the IDM material. If you are interested in change then you
                        > may be interested in the IDM analysis of the ancient chinese book of change,
                        > The I Ching, where I focus on the non-changing aspects that make the I Ching
                        > the I Ching! ;-) see:
                        >
                        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

                        If the mapping of your thesis to the I Ching is valid, you should be
                        able to use it to elucidate the material. Obviously the question of the
                        material is relevant here, but I think the "canonical" Wilhelm/Baynes
                        edition is a decent place to start, if one has Confucius in a decent
                        translation at hand.

                        > Also see such pages as 'wave dichotomies' and how from the dynamic we
                        > extract the considered static etc and make a hybrid reality:
                        >
                        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html
                        >
                        > This is also covered in the focus on the brain as a high/low band filter:
                        >
                        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html
                        >
                        > This static/dynamic focus is also present in our logic:
                        >
                        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html
                        >
                        >
                        > > These two constants are what they are, with no justification or
                        > > explanation or significance, until they are perceived by a being with an
                        > > agenda to supply these attributes. In this case, the being is h sap sap
                        > > and the agenda is survival. The fundamental of consciousness is the
                        > > ability to store and organize received (sensory) data, which allows for
                        > > the *re*cognition of some perceived set of changes and motions. This
                        > > recognition yields the awareness of Process.
                        > >
                        > > Process is a recognized organization of change and motion. It requires
                        > > the attribute of memory. It allows for the opportunity to prepare.
                        > >
                        >
                        > The development of the neurology and associated senses allows for 'reactive'
                        > states that through self-referencing move into 'proactive' states where
                        > local context dynamics have been adapted-to in the form of instincts that
                        > allow context to the PUSH a life form. The feedback involved allows for the
                        > consolidation of the instincts to a degree where a 'map' of the context is
                        > internalised and so allows for a more proactive push to pre-empt the
                        > context.
                        <snip>

                        Okay, I wonder if you know who your audience is here. This is not, or I
                        don't think it is, a professional email list where the argot you use is
                        common language. If that's the case, I'd be best advised to
                        unsubscribe.

                        If your audience is such that accepts the vocabulary here as presumed,
                        they are qualified to review and critique it. And they would do so for
                        reasons specific to their competency, whatever those might be. In this
                        forum, however, that is not the case, I think. Other responses strongly
                        suggest that I've got the right of it in this regard.

                        Here, this amounts to gratuitous tech talk. What you need to do, if you
                        are going to post here for the purposes of communicating your ideas, is
                        to get rid of the argot. If you can succeed without that, you will have
                        shown that you do indeed know what you're talking about, because others
                        will understand your writing well enough to at least ask questions.

                        I'm not all that good at doing that sort of thing, but at least I hew to
                        that standard. And there are consequences. It's how I find out if I do
                        in fact know what the hell I'm talking about, and I can assure you that
                        all too often I discover that I don't. But that process helps me to see
                        where things fall apart.

                        Further: The single most deadly flaw in any exposition is the inclusion
                        of the unrecognized assumption. Which is why reducing one's argument to
                        the most basic terms is a good idea; it illuminates those flaws. The
                        reason I say this is because I think you've got a lot of such
                        assumptions that are not addressed, much less accommodated.

                        That said, it is nearly impossible to eliminate assumptions. So the
                        point is to identify and accommodate them. What I mean is that you
                        recognize and make note of them as you find them, and then adjust your
                        use of them to acknowledge their conditional nature. Assumption may be
                        true or false, valid or invalid, near misses or out of the ball park,
                        and so forth.

                        And yes I'm another curmudgeonly old fart. But my intent is to try to
                        facilitate rather than repudiate. You'd do well to revisit your work
                        and interpret it as I've suggested. We'd benefit from the opportunity
                        to learn what you've got to say, and you'd benefit from the extra
                        clarity of thought that you'd stand to gain.

                        Bill Tallman
                      • Chris Lofting
                        ... From: Chris Lofting [mailto:chrislofting@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2006 1:14 PM To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Mind and
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 3, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Chris Lofting [mailto:chrislofting@...]
                          Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2006 1:14 PM
                          To: 'MindBrain@yahoogroups.com'
                          Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Language Acquisition and Brain
                          Development

                          All I see here and in Jud's email is apparent ignorance of current research
                          and a failure to read/understand the supplied references in my IDM material
                          that supports the model.

                          IF YOU CANT FIND THE PAGES FOR YOURSELVES HERE ARE SOME LINKS:

                          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/neurorefs.html
                          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/brefs.html
                          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/formrefs.html
                          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dencerefs.html

                          It appears that BOTH of you need to do some serious reading in neurosciences
                          etc before you can discuss anything re brain/mind etc

                          Now if you both find all of that too difficult then all I can say is time
                          will tell. I am not into rhetoric but am happy to play references at 10
                          paces... I have shown you the path to mine...

                          Chris.
                        • Chris Lofting
                          ... ... I have. Applying the IDM material to the IC has brought out aspects never covered in the traditional texts - aspects not of the IC but of
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                            > Behalf Of William D. Tallman
                            > Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2006 1:08 PM
                            > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Language Acquisition and Brain
                            > Development
                            >
                            <Snip>
                            > >
                            > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus
                            >
                            > If the mapping of your thesis to the I Ching is valid, you should be
                            > able to use it to elucidate the material.

                            I have. Applying the IDM material to the IC has brought out aspects never
                            covered in the 'traditional' texts - aspects not of the IC but of recursion
                            and as such applicable to all other associated categorisations using
                            recursion of a dichotomy - READ THE MATERIAL.

                            > Obviously the question of the
                            > material is relevant here, but I think the "canonical" Wilhelm/Baynes
                            > edition is a decent place to start, if one has Confucius in a decent
                            > translation at hand.
                            >

                            I have done my homework BIGTIME in this area - the IC refs etc are in
                            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html The IDM focus is on
                            what the many LOCAL texts are trying to represent and that is the qualities
                            of the template. The regular network/small world network analysis is
                            summarised in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dimensions.html

                            The SAME patterns are mapped to categories of emotions -
                            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html (ref list at the
                            end)

                            The SAME patterns are mapped to categories of number types in Mathematics -
                            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/NeuroMaths3.htm

                            IOW the SPECIALIST maps have different context/labels etc but are using the
                            ONE set of underlying core categories derivable from recursion of
                            differentiating/integrating.

                            Go through the links - carefully, slowly. THINK. Your prose suggests a
                            'light' analysis influenced by your training. This is not 'light' stuff and
                            my work in the area of meaning in the I Ching metaphor etc shows the depth
                            of what we are dealing with (the IC is usable due to its 6 to 12-dichotomy
                            depth - most other categorisations stop at 5 or less and so lack resolution.
                            See the above links on emotions categories etc. IDM allows us to go FAR
                            deeper in analysis etc.

                            As for closed vs open, see the diagram and associated comments in
                            http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/btree.jpg ; in the generatation
                            of language we appear to use recursion to generate qualities and use the
                            finite set as a source of qualities used to communicate. As such these
                            finite sets are sources of ANALOGY/METAPHOR.

                            See the pages on the I Ching link above re this use of recursion to elicit
                            the qualities used in communications.

                            > > Also see such pages as 'wave dichotomies' and how from the dynamic we
                            > > extract the considered static etc and make a hybrid reality:
                            > >
                            > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html
                            > >
                            > > This is also covered in the focus on the brain as a high/low band
                            > filter:
                            > >
                            > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html
                            > >
                            > > This static/dynamic focus is also present in our logic:
                            > >
                            > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html
                            > >
                            > >

                            Did you go through all of these as well? ;-)

                            Rather than say 'I don't understand this, put it into 'my' language' try to
                            get the template - a template that has seeded YOUR language - IOW you need
                            to look BEHIND your language and you will find IDM. ;-)

                            Chris.
                          • Phil Roberts, Jr.
                            ... ... Jud and Bill: I think you ve been a bit hard on Chris, but I don t know if its because you have a problem with him in particular or because
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 4, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              William D. Tallman wrote:
                              > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 07:57:55AM -0500, gevans613@... wrote:
                              > > In a message dated 03/01/2006 08:15:05 GMT Standard Time,
                              > > chrislofting@... writes:
                              > >
                              > >> I got part way though this and gave up - it is a waste of energy
                              > >> full of contradictions, distortions for the sake of argument etc
                              > >> etc. and not worthy of further comment from me other than to say
                              > >> that the nominalist perspective is a weak one being ONE of the set
                              > >> of possible perspectives that emerge from
                              > >> differentiating/integrating. Simple. The dynamics across the
                              > >> elements of that dichotomy allow for nominalisation/de-nominalisation
                              > >> and indicate a basic property/method of our neurology and that of all
                              > >> other neuron-dependent life forms.
                              > > Jud:
                              > > You answer legitimate criticism with a spate of metaphysical gobbledegook.
                              > > You are unable to provide ONE SINGLE JOT of evidence for you fantasies.
                              > > My offer remains on the table - come up with some evidence - just one tiny
                              > > of the metaphysical ignis fatuus
                              > > you claim exists will do, and Nobel Committee bound, and phial in hand - I
                              > > will board the next available plane to Stockholm
                              > >

                              <snipped>

                              >
                              > Now, all that said, the one thing that you can always do without any
                              > loss of respect is to ask questions. I would welcome a set of critical
                              > questions of what I've written here. But beware: questions that are
                              > genuinely meant as requests for elaboration and explanation are one
                              > thing. Questions that are obvious repudiations without substance are
                              > quite another, and will be dealt with accordingly.
                              >
                              > Okay, your clock is running ;)
                              >
                              > Bill Tallman
                              >

                              Jud and Bill:

                              I think you've been a bit hard on Chris, but I don't know if its
                              because you have a problem with him in particular or because you
                              regard anyone who believes in "spookstuff" as beyond redemption.
                              One way to find out, I suppose, would be to copy Chris's move and
                              offer up a bit of my own speculation in the psycho-philosophical
                              realm, and observe your reaction. What follows is a small paper
                              I presented at a conference a few months ago. I would be
                              interested in both your reactions to it. Here goes:



                              Feelings of Worthlessness

                              An Outline of a Divergent Theory of Emotional Instability

                              Objective: To account for ego/self-worth related emotion (e.g.,
                              needs for love, purpose, meaning, acceptance, attention, moral
                              integrity, recognition, achievement, wealth, power, dignity,
                              fame, immortality, religion, autonomy, justice, etc.) and
                              emotional disorder (e.g., anxiety, depression, addiction,
                              suicide, etc.) within the context of an evolutionary scenario;
                              i.e., to synthesize natural science and the humanities; i.e.,
                              to answer the question: 'Why are members of one particular
                              species of naturally selected organism (Homo Sapiens) expending
                              significant amounts of effort and energy on the survivalistically
                              bizarre non-physical objective of maximizing self-worth?'

                              General Observation: The species in which rationality is most
                              developed is also the one in which individuals have the greatest
                              difficulty in maintaining an “adequate” sense of self-worth,
                              often going to extraordinary lengths in doing so (e.g., Evel
                              Knievel, celibate monks, 9/11 terrorists, etc.).

                              General Hypothesis: Rationality is antagonistic to psychocentric
                              stability (i.e., maintaining an "adequate" sense of self-worth).

                              Explanation #1 (psychodynamics): In much the manner reasoning
                              allows for the subordination of lower emotional concerns and
                              values (pain, fear, anger, sex, etc.) to more global concerns
                              (concern for the self as a whole), so too, these more global
                              concerns and values can themselves become reevaluated and
                              subordinated to other more global, more objective considerations.
                              And if this is so, and assuming that emotional disorder emanates
                              from a deficiency in self-worth resulting from precisely this
                              sort of experientially based reevaluation, then it can reasonably
                              be construed as a natural malfunction resulting from one's
                              rational faculties functioning a tad too well.

                              Explanation #2 (rationality theory): Being the blind arational
                              process that she is, Mother Nature instills in all her creatures
                              a sense of their own importance (or of the importance of their
                              needs) that is rationally inordinate. And, as a species reaches
                              a certain stage in its rational/cultural/memetic development, its
                              members increasingly come to question this inordinancy, and
                              increasingly come to require reasons (justification) for
                              maintaining it (needs for love, purpose, meaning, etc.).

                              Normalcy and Disorder (consciousness studies): Assuming this is
                              correct, then some explanation for the relative "normalcy" of most
                              individuals would seem necessary. This is accomplished simply by
                              postulating different levels or degrees of consciousness. From
                              this perspective, emotional disorder would then be construed as
                              A VALUATIVE AFFLICTION resulting from an increase in semantic
                              content in the engram indexed by the linguistic expression, "I
                              am insignificant",[1] which all persons of common sense "know" to
                              be true, but which the "emotionally disturbed" have come to
                              "realize", through abstract thought, devaluing experience, etc.

                              Indeterminism: "Free will" and the incessant activity presumed
                              to emanate from it is simply the insatiable appetite members
                              of our species have for self-significating/self-worth
                              enhancing experience (juxtaposed with the need to avoid the
                              pain of 'feelings of worthlessness') which, in turn, is simply
                              nature's way of attempting to counter the objectifying
                              influences of our rational faculties. As such, although "free
                              will" itself (the self-worth complex) is constrained within
                              parameters determined by natural selection (the maximizing of
                              self-worth), its presence in us, manifested in the need to
                              expend significant amounts of effort and energy on maintaining
                              emotional well-being (keeping up with the Joneses, climbing Mt.
                              Everest, posting to newsgroups, etc.) would, according to this
                              perspective, be construed as evidence that members of nature's
                              most rational species have become TOO VALUATIVELY OBJECTIVE
                              (requiring remedial measures) and, as such, LESS CONATIVELY/
                              VALUATIVELY DETERMINED by natural selection than members of
                              less rational more emotionally stable species. In this view,
                              indeterminism is manifested, not in the ability to change one's
                              mind about what to have for breakfast, but rather in a species
                              whose members appear less and less concerned with staying alive
                              (e.g., daily suicide bombings in the Middle East) and more and
                              more concerned with REASONS (justification) for staying alive
                              (e.g., needs for love, purpose, meaning, blah blah blah.

                              Ethics: Since, according to this explanation, more rational equates
                              with more valuatively objective, the valuative objectivity
                              inherent in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your
                              neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself' would be
                              construed as evidence of an implicit theory of rationality we
                              humans have been subconsciously entertaining for the past several
                              thousand years.[2] It would also mean that the author of Genesis
                              got it right in referring to the emergence of an awareness of
                              right and wrong as a form of knowledge. The affective force of
                              moral argument apparently arises from the fact that perceiving
                              ourselves as rational is a crucial determinant in assessing
                              self-worth which, in a species that accomplishes its survival
                              from a conscious intention to do so (e.g., long range planning)
                              rather than as a cumulative effect of blindly responding to
                              stimuli, is just another way of thinking and talking about "the
                              will to survive".

                              Incompleteness:
                              Of course, no human is likely to measure up to this very
                              high standard of loving others as they love themselves
                              (valuative objectivity), but then another one of the myriads
                              of implications of this view of rationality is that no person,
                              belief, objective, theory, etc. is likely to be rational in
                              any but a relative sense of the term (the empirical analogue
                              of Godel's logical discovery that mathematical rationality can
                              never be found in its entirety within a formal system). Since
                              this would apply to the present theory, it is one that predicts
                              its own eventual demise.


                              [1] I have employed this unorthodox terminology, not to impress the
                              reader with my erudite understanding of emotional disorder, but
                              to suggest a new way of thinking and talking about the matter
                              -- one in which emotional disorder is understood in terms of the
                              behavior of abstract psychical entities. In particular, one
                              might surmise that this particular increase in semantic content
                              arises from an increase in the value one attaches to the “truth”
                              of the engram or belief indexed by the linguistic expression,
                              “I am insignificant”, both of which are types of content which
                              apparently occupy the form of the engram, and all of which might
                              be considered as alternative ways of thinking and talking about
                              an increase in consciousness. As to the ontic status of the
                              these postulated entities, they are based on the identification
                              of pertinent features of nature in much the way the entities
                              postulated by physical scientists are, but with the advantage
                              that it is perhaps a bit easier to remain in touch with the fact
                              that they are, in the final analysis, constructs of human
                              imagination.

                              [2]. Being objective should not be confused with STRIVING TO BE
                              objective. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is
                              one that is profound for a theory of rationality in which 'being
                              rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective'. Striving to
                              be something is a strategic notion and, as such, can readily
                              entail a lack of objectivity about the significance of the end.
                              As such, for example, it can be relatively irrational to strive
                              to be rational, at least to the extent one becomes a monomaniac.
                              This is the implication in the Frankenstein story, in which our
                              intuitions are informing us that there is something irrational
                              about Dr. Frankenstein's obsession with the quest for knowledge
                              at all costs. This also explains why and how reasons can be more
                              or less rational. Reasons are strategic animals, whereas
                              rationality appears to be more a matter of objectivity and reasons
                              can have more or less of it in them.




                              PR
                            • glen_swift
                              ... Hi Bill, I pretty much quit reading Chris s posts some time ago, largely because I felt that some of his most basic assumptions were unwarrented and my
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 4, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "William D. Tallman"
                                <wdtallman@o...> wrote:
                                > That said, it is nearly impossible to eliminate assumptions. So
                                > the point is to identify and accommodate them. What I mean is
                                > that you recognize and make note of them as you find them, and
                                > then adjust your use of them to acknowledge their conditional
                                > nature. Assumption may be true or false, valid or invalid, near
                                > misses or out of the ball park, and so forth.

                                Hi Bill,

                                I pretty much quit reading Chris's posts some time ago, largely
                                because I felt that some of his most basic assumptions were
                                unwarrented and my attempts to get him to recognize his assumptions
                                went nowhere. Good luck in establishing meaningful communication
                                with him.

                                Perhaps it would help if you'd point out what his assumptions are,
                                both for his benefit and everyone else's, if you've got the patience
                                to do so. I quit trying to communicate with him because I make some
                                very different assumptions about these sorts of things, and his
                                unwillingness (or inability?) to recognize his assumptions tended to
                                reduce our disagreements to mere arguments ("I'm right!": "No, I'm
                                right!").

                                Best wishes,
                                Glen

                                --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "William D. Tallman"
                                <wdtallman@o...> wrote:
                                >
                                > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:14:50AM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:
                                >
                                >> <snip>
                                >>
                                > <snip>
                                >
                                > Okay, I wonder if you know who your audience is here. This is
                                not, or I
                                > don't think it is, a professional email list where the argot you
                                use is
                                > common language. If that's the case, I'd be best advised to
                                > unsubscribe.
                                >
                                <Snip>
                              • Mark Peaty
                                Happy New Year to all! [Jud, Happy New Year! I see the force is still with you! :-] I sympathise with much of what Jud writes in response to Chris s
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 5, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Happy New Year to all!
                                  [
                                  Jud, Happy New Year!  I see the force is still with you!  :-]

                                  I sympathise with much of what Jud writes in response to Chris's theorising. I don't go there myself because I would prefer to encourage/provoke people who write in plain English. There are however one or two points I think Jud and the eliminators should be careful of.

                                  For example [2/01/2006 23:45 WAST]:
                                  Jud:
                                  *Perspectives, consciousness, paradoxes, precision,*  are fictions - useful abstractions
                                  which are completely absent from the brain itself.  Only the perspectival, conscious, precise or imprecise brain exists
                                  which sometimes is perplexed by seeing paradox. These fictions have no place in science.

                                  Paradox is not so easily disposed of. My point is that in order to function in a useful way the brain creates within itself robust sustainable, repeating patterns of activity which embody dynamic logical structures that are the closest it can get to recursive self references. The self referencing and recursion are not accidents but intrinsic to the nature of what sophisticated brains do which is navigate the body through its physical and social environments. Thus the structure and the intrinsic, dynamic, repeated, indispensable activity patterns which also constitute 'structure' are all part and parcel of what a human brain is. To put that another way: all the human brains now extant on the planet incorporate and embody dynamic logical structures [DLS] which are _patterns of interaction amongst widespread coalitions of neurons_ and the brains in question can only continue to exist so long as they continue this embodiment.

                                  The utility of most DLS is in that they are *about* things other than themselves and mostly things external to the human body. The fact that most people for most of the time are unconcerned that their experiences of perceiving and doing are what it is like to be these structures as they evolve and interact is not a problem in most circumstances. Indeed for many people this lack of concern is absolute and in place ALL of the time. This is after all our native state: the naive realism that Darwinian evolution has favoured.

                                  This naive realism is the force behind the reification of abstractions that Jud gets so worked up about. It is the prerequisite state for most religious experiences and doctrines. In fact I think we could say it is just about the most fundamental issue confronting our species at the moment, and the antidote is scepticism.... Well, anyway, Jud is right that we delude ourselves when we impute 'thingness', or some generalised reification of consciousness,
                                  to the world. But how wrong are we when we see the various green hues of grasses and leaves? How deluded are we when we count 5 children in the swimming class? And are we really wrong when we recognise a song or a sonata sounding forth?

                                  Well Jud is mostly right, but the plain-English explanation needs to point the worried and the newly sceptical to the full depth of our potential disquiet. The truth is we live by means of a description of the world. 'Description' here means not only forms of words and narrative but also all the non-linguistic processes of attribution and assignment entailed in perception, discernment and navigation. This process of describing the world is most of what the human brain does. It entails the creation and evocation of dynamic logical structures [DLS] which, when active, constitute the mind of the moment. Where a DLS representing [i.e. 'about'] something or other is linked into the DLS constituting the current model of self, that is the experience of consciousness.

                                  Now Jud seems to want to say that what I am calling DLS do not actually exist, but only that a flesh and blood person 'X' exists in his/her current existential modality or some such. But is seems to me that Jud's approach does not acknowledge the true difficulties we face. I guess my approach is reductionist not eliminative. In particular Jud's approach [so far] does not seem to help at all in coming to grips with the issues of structure and structural changes  embodying  our existence. I mean it is not enough to simply say that all that exists is the 'physical' body and brain, we have to be able to systematically describe which body and brain [more polite to say 'who'] and relate their current state to the provenance of their beliefs, ideas, habits, skills and so forth. This entails a 'calculus' involving memes.

                                  May the Paradox be with you!

                                  ****
                                  On a lighter note: 'My Brain Hurts!'
                                  'T.F. Gumby' of Monty Python provenance is funny [or was for the first few times we heard him say it] with his 'My brain hurts'
                                  http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode32.htm in part at least because, before the advent of modern research into the brain and its relationship to what many of us happily call our mind, nobody's brain ever hurt. It was always something else which hurt: toe, tummy, head, pride [:-)], etc.
                                  ****

                                  Regards

                                  Mark Peaty
                                  mpeaty@...
                                  http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
                                  http://eiffel.dcc.ufla.br/focus/index.php


                                  gevans613@... wrote[2/01/2006 23:45WAST]:
                                  In a message dated 02/01/2006 08:14:13 GMT Standard Time, chrislofting@... writes:
                                  Jud,
                                  Nouns n verbs dude. Tools of our consciousness reflecting the abstraction of
                                  qualities of differentiating (nouns) and integrating (verbs). Period.
                                  Understand the properties and methods of the general, universal, and out
                                  will come better understanding of the particular, local.
                                  Jud:
                                  No. Nouns and verbs and all the other signals we use to communicate are the way that we consciously
                                  transfer notions of the way WE are existing at the time the transfer is made to the conscious human recipient of
                                  those signals and signs in order that THEY then exist in a modality of being aware of how we were existing at the time the transfer was made. The *meaning* is manifested in the changes rendered in the way the addressee exists after he or she has received the codes and converted them into meaningful ways of neurologically existing.
                                  The codes [the nouns and verbs] have no INTRINSIC meaning - the meaning is what the human brain extrapolates from the codes.
                                  The plate fastened to the hull of the unmanned spaceship blasted into the far areas of the universe with the human greeting words thereon is utterly meaningless unless those words are on day read by a human or an alien who has *cracked* the codes in order to understand them.
                                  The meaning and understandability lies with the human and the alien semiotician NOT the actual codes.
                                  When a human looks at a tree - the *treeness* and the word *tree* does not lie somewhere in the branches or under the bark of the *tree* - it lies in the human neurological networks.  The tree simply exists as it exists  - completely unmeaningfully in the spatial position in which it happens to be.  The noun and the verb lie as outlines of dried ink particles - bereft of any *meaning*  Until a human being who is neurologically *tooled up* to extract meaning from the meaningless symbols converts the shapes on the page into changes in the patterns in the electrochemical biomass of his neurological reticulation.

                                  Chris:
                                  If you have a record player, cd player, dvd player they all work off
                                  producing 'meaning' from encoding and decoding of wave patterns/bit
                                  patterns. The oscillations involved reflect the brain oscillations across
                                  left/right, front/back of the brain (and on down to a pair of neurons
                                  deriving the exclusive OR) - be it our brains or that of other
                                  neuron-dependent life forms. (and split brain work shows how the elements of
                                  the dichotomy are linked and cooperate, but when the link is cut so the
                                  elements become competitive) -IOW our 'whole' mental expression is derived
                                  from 'playing over' the underlying neural connections - as such any BIAS in
                                  that playing, any variation in the oscillations, will elicit, over the long
                                  term, a bias to one 'side' or the other 'side' directly influencing our
                                  expressions.
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  See above - aural signals work in exactly the same way - there is no intrinsic *meaning* to be found in the notes.
                                  The *meaning* is to be found in the oscillating brain NOT in the brain oscillations across
                                  left/right, front/back of the brain - for they do not exist - only the oscillating neurons exist down to a pair of neurons
                                  deriving the exclusive OR.
                                   
                                  Like all metaphysicians of the brain you keep insisting that there are some weirdo non-material doo-dahs called *oscillations*
                                  which exist.  I suppose you believe that the *twinkling* of Xmas tree lights exist, rather than what ACTUALLY exists which is the twinkling xmas tree lights? It is precisely this medieval attitude which is bringing psychology, psychiatry and some versions of neurology into so much disrepute, which will ultimately end up in the loss of jobs in the profession throughout huge swathes of the medical and academic establishment.

                                  Chris:
                                  The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',
                                   
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  *Thingness* does not exist - only material entities exist.
                                  Ship me a crate of *thingness* to my address and I will alert the BBC and the American media immediately - I can be your agent [(10%] and I promise you international stardom.  ;-)
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris  The differentiating bias ENSURES a focus on 'thingness',... the discrete, and
                                  without that there would be no consciousness; ...
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  There is ALREADY no *consciousness* only the conscious, differentiating  Chris exists.
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris:
                                  the moment you say "I think that" etc so you have differentiated yourself from all else - BUT that focus
                                  on differentiating is a focus on moving past the whole and into parts
                                  analysis -
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  The moment you say *I think that...* you exist in different modalities of cogitating, your brain nets change
                                  their configuration and enter into a comparative modality of analysing intrinsically and extrinsically derived *meaning.*
                                  The *focus* or *focusing* does not exist - only he or she who focuses exists.
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris:
                                   IOW we move to internal analysis of 'something' and in doing so
                                  can suspend holistic interactions with 'reality';
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  There is no *reality* it does not exist.  What exists is that which is real [you, me the tree,]
                                  What exists is the *realising* you and me.
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris:
                                  we become mechanistic but in doing so we also become VERY precise in identifications etc that we can
                                  then re-integrate to be 'mindlessly' whole again - letting context push our
                                  buttons. As such there is a dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
                                  dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (in linguistics
                                  the term is nominalisation (verb to noun)/de-nominalisation (noun to verb))
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  No - we become very precise in identifying the way in which that which we are identifying [say the tree] exists.
                                  Identifications themselves do not exist. There is no *dynamic across the mechanistic/organic
                                  dichotomy, across the differentiating/integrating dichotomy* it does not exist.
                                  What exists is the dichotomising human brain  - the *meaning* of words do not exist - only the human wordifier and nominaliser exists in existential modalities of *meaning something* and *nominalising something.*
                                  There is no non-material *second-order or *higher-realm* of existence* which is in some way *separate* or dichotomised from the brain-meat.
                                   


                                  Chris:
                                  This movement guarantees the creation of paradox in that it is our
                                  consciousness that creates such perspectives - and that's fine as long as we
                                  know what is going on ;-) - the price of precision is the occasional paradox
                                  (and so the examples of this XOR/AND dynamic in
                                  http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  *Perspectives, consciousness, paradoxes, precision,*  are fictions - useful abstractions
                                  which are completely absent from the brain itself.  Only the perspectival, conscious, precise or imprecise brain exists
                                  which sometimes is perplexed by seeing paradox. These fictions have no place in science.

                                  Chris:
                                  Differentiating is a fundamental part of our being,
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  We have no *being* or *Being* - we are a certain type of entity which we call a *human* being a human.
                                  Existence and *being do not exist - only that which exists as a certain object and that which is a certain entity exists.
                                  *Differentiating* does not exist - only the differentiating human exists.
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris:  [differentiating] it is built-in to our neurology, in that it enables the PRECISE identification of patterns 'out
                                  there' (as well as 'in here'). With differentiation comes a DELAY factor
                                  that reflects the actions of awareness in the processing of information
                                  prior to the habituation to that information in the form of symbol and habit
                                  formations - upon which the delay, and awareness, disappear.

                                  With the presence of delay comes the label of 'consciousness' compared to
                                  the lack of that delay that comes with the label of
                                  'unconscious'/'instinctive'. - ( and so the presence of the serial/parallel
                                  dichotomy that accompanies the mechanistic/organic dichotomy - both
                                  dichotomies being context-sensitive examples of differentiating/integrating)

                                  Without understanding these simple, and so basic dynamics of the brain, all
                                  philosophy is fiction. That said, even supposedly 'neuron-aware' people like
                                  the Churchlands etc are still too focused on the trees to 'grok' the forest.
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  No, Chris all YOUR abstract-dependant fiction-conditional  kind of philosophy is fiction both in conception and application. 
                                  It did not need the Churchlands to work that one out.
                                  The Churchlands know all about *forrests* and like me they realise that *forrests do not exist.
                                  What exists are individual trees grouped in a position of spatial contingency-
                                  *to be grouped in a position of spatial contingency* does not exist - what exists are the individuate trees grouped in a position of spatial contingency

                                  Chris:
                                  Consciousness is to neurology what a Mozart sonata is to the CD encoding it
                                  - both consciousness and that sonata come out of the 'playing' - be it
                                  neural dynamics in the brain or laser dynamics in the CD the mediation
                                  involved elicits what we hear/see/feel/reason.
                                   
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  Neither *consciousness* nor *neurology* exist.  What exists is the neuron-equipped human
                                  decoding the sounds produced from playing the CD and converting them into meaningful modifications in those areas of their neuronal net which mediates such signals into pleasurable or unpleasurable existential modifications.
                                  The human, the CD, the CD player, the oscillating sound waves and oscillating neurons exist but poor old Mozart's sonata does not. The *sonata* is just a convenient fiction for the concrete entities involved in modifying the neuronal networks of the music-lover. If you enjoy being tickled and I tickle you under the arm - the *tickling* doesn't exist.
                                  What exists are the tickler [me] and the changing brain of he who is tickled [you] as the changing pleasurable modalities of your  the bodybrain respond to the movements of my tickling fingers.   ;-)

                                  Chris:
                                  Consciousness, being an agent of mediation,
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  It is the conscious, mediating  human who exists - not some stowaway refugee medieval harum-scarum named  *consciousness.*
                                   
                                   
                                  Chris:
                                  Consciousness is not necessary for survival,
                                  one can live like an ape off instincts and limited awareness of self if you
                                  wish, but to live in a collective DESIGNED by interactions of awareness with
                                  context, and so a mediating collective, means the necessity for the label of
                                  'consciousness'.
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  *Consciousness* is not necessary for anything [man nor beast] for it is a fiction.
                                  What is necessary for in humans to exist in the full sense of the term is to be conscious members of the human species.
                                   
                                  Chris:
                                  As I have repeatedly suggested, consciousness is a PRODUCT, an ARTIFACT, of
                                  neural dynamics and as such the realm of mediation and labelling is very
                                  much part of US. 'lower' levels of personal awareness seem to be expressed
                                  in lower neuron-dependent life forms but it appears to require high neural
                                  complexity to 'link all of the dots' into some 24/7 sense of awareness (and
                                  so when we wake up we can continue where we left off when we went to sleep!)
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                  There is no *product* of neural dynamics.  What exists are dynamic neurons, which alter the way in which they exist in relation to other neurons.  The [human] producer and what you call *the product* are in fact the same entity, which has changed the way it exists in order to mediate the new ways in which is constantly reacting and adapting to intrinsic and extrinsic impingement.

                                  Chris:
                                  The hierarchy of neural development allows for the oscillation dynamics
                                  mentioned earlier operating at the 'top' end of the neural pyramid. (and so
                                  variations in the timing can accumulate to elicit a distinct 'persona' in
                                  the individual's overall behaviour - all POSSIBLE personas are part of our
                                  genetic heritage but LOCAL CONTEXT can then 'select' a bias to one over the
                                  others - and that includes a nominalist perspective vs a non-nominalist
                                  (recurse that dichotomy to get the full spectrum of types ;-) --- although
                                  the more charismatic types favour asserting their context as 'THE' context
                                   
                                  Jud:
                                   
                                  Rephrase the above into a *metaphysical free-zone* and you might start getting somewhere with your theories.
                                  You are undoubtedly extremely intelligent and desrve sucess - drop the ontological duality bit and you have *take-off* Proceed in the way you are and you will be forgotten as *just another transcendentalist turning ineffectual cognitive somersaults to make metaphysics work.*
                                  We have had 3-thousand years of metaphysics Chris and where has it got us?
                                  Please change Chris.  With your brilliant abilities you would make a outstanding eliminative material neurologist and make real headway.
                                   
                                  Cheers,
                                   
                                  Jud.
                                • leonmaurer@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 1/3/06 2:05:27 PM, gevans613@aol.com writes: (in response to Chris Lofting) (snip) ... If the understanding here is that the process must
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 9, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    In a message dated 1/3/06 2:05:27 PM, gevans613@... writes: (in response to Chris Lofting)

                                    (snip)

                                    NOTHING *emerges from *differentiating/integrating,* because *differentiating/integrating* doesn't exist to *differentiate or integrate* anything.
                                    As Bill Tallman has just succinctly made clear, verbs are doinginess.  Beingness and doingness don't generally map to differentiation and integration. He might have added: *Don't map to anything at all.*

                                    There is NO *dynamics across the elements of that dichotomy,* because abstract nouns like *dichotomy* don't exist — what exists is the object/objects which is/are dichotomised NOT the dichotomy itself. As M. Sur and J.L. Rubenstein  pointed out in the science article posted by Robert:
                                     
                                     *The cerebral cortex of the human brain is a sheet of about 10 billion neurons divided into discrete subdivisions or areas that process particular aspects of sensation, movement, and cognition.*
                                    (Science 2005 310:805)


                                    If the understanding here is that the "process" must result in a product -- that product can only be the "contents of consciousness" or its raw information -- not consciousness itself (as awareness, discrimination, discernment, will, etc.). 

                                    All the brain can do is convert the particular information it receives from each of the senses into a form that is accessible to our consciousness.  And also, act as a transducer/transponder between the muscular system and the will or intent (wherever and whatever those aspects of consciousness originate from and are located). 

                                    If we consider that only tangible physical objects alone are what "exists" (which I doubt) -- those transcendental aspects of consciousness, nevertheless, can dynamically influence the nature, form and actions of those existing objects.  Intent, empowered by will coupled with mind-memory discernment and discrimination in conjunction with a dynamic, mind centered model of the positions of the body with relation to the stationary outer world, determines the active response of the body to the perception of a fast moving baseball so as to catch it on the fly.  

                                    Therefore, the brain must simply be the intermediate transducer/transponder producing the
                                    *image of perception*, between the *object of perception* and the *perceiver*

                                    Thus, all action-reaction with respect to the senses must be related to an underlying dichotomy between body-brain, brain-mind and mind-consciousness -- between each of which there must be an inherent dynamic relationship.

                                    Since those three entities are mutually dependent and reversibly interdependent -- they must all be, in effect, the properties or aspects of some form of
                                    *existent* reality extending from the least to the most dense aspects of substance or matter that "exists" everywhere on multidimensional coadunate but not consubstantial levels or planes of condensed primal or zero-point space -- from whose "spinergy" everything originates and is empowered. **

                                    It follows, if consciously (or instinctively) applied will, in conjunction with discernment and discrimination, can empower the movements of the body, then that same will on a cosmic level, can apparently empower the motion that creates the forms of all the particles and formations of Nature.  If so, then it becomes obvious that consciousness is the inherent dual aspect of fundamental reality, in opposition to matter, and exists prior to the appearance of our space-time continuum, i.e., before the big bang (if that ever happened as science sees it :)  This, of course, would be the first dichotomy with a dynamic relationship (i.e., the zero-point "singularity" vs. its "spinergy").

                                    Thus, God knows that it's alive, even as it sleeps...  And, since such an infinite conscious force, overloaded with stored information gathered during its previous awakening(s) needs no chance occurrences to generate its structures, it certainly "doesn't play dice," as Einstein observed.   </:-)> 

                                    So, my conclusion is that every aspect or attribute of fundamental space that can effect the motion, position or condition of something else, dynamically or otherwise, and no matter how transformed itself, must exist as a universal reality to be considered scientifically and/or philosophically.

                                    Best wishes,

                                    Leon
                                    http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
                                    ** http://www.zeropoint.ca/microcosm_4-7bleonmaurer.htm.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.