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

RE: [existlist] Back on Track... Maybe

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lofting
    ... Easy... ... If we take the brain out of its containment we find ourselves with a trunk and many branches, bifurcations where the traits covered bring out
    Message 1 of 2 , May 30, 2007
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of C. S. Wyatt
      > Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:42 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Back on Track... Maybe
      >
      > I'm going to make a futile effort to bring us back on track, I fear.
      >
      > As science reveals that some social norms are coded and likely developed
      > in a manner
      > similar to basic grammar (we have the elemental basics of language "wired"
      > is one theory)
      > the question is being asked how we can have free will and still be
      > genetically based.
      >

      Easy...

      > I read a quote today from a neurologist / philosopher (seriously) who said
      > that the fact our
      > higher reasoning allows us to override our instincts tells us that free
      > will is a new thing,
      > and one that makes us different. Yes, we have impulses, but our brains are
      > evolving to
      > allow us the freedom to reject impulse -- we can pause and think, if we
      > have developed
      > the discipline to do so.
      >

      If we take the brain out of its containment we find ourselves with a trunk
      and many branches, bifurcations where the traits covered bring out the
      properties/methods of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy. The bifurcation
      brings out the fractal dynamics as we move 'up' the tree to frontal lobes
      and the prefrontal cortex covering planning etc. and rich associative
      memory.

      What is of interest is that reason appears to develop from emotion as a
      controller of emotion and consciousness from reason as a regulation of such
      - in other words the 'free will' aspect of consciousness allows for
      regulation of reason by being unreasonable at times - in other words we have
      a CHOICE and so can escape false reasoning that can get us into logical
      traps.

      Libet's work shows the delay nature of consciousness where the presence of
      awareness in dealing with the new/complex puts a 0.5 second delay in
      response times to the new. Once the new has been habituated, and so
      converted from difference to sameness, aka instinct/habit, so the delay
      disappears.

      > This comment appeared in an article on USC's research dealing with
      > "morality" and brain
      > damage. People with frontal lobe injuries make decisions based on
      > probability and
      > statistics, meaning they don't even pause when asked if they would destroy
      > a passenger
      > plane to save a large city. "Normal" people paused and their fMRI scans
      > were markedly
      > different. The end decisions were always similar, once rationalized, but
      > the instinct of
      > most people was not to kill anyone.
      >

      There are issues here with education and past experiences to the damage.

      See Gazzaniga, M.S., (2005)"The Ethical Brain" Dana Press

      An essential point in development instincts/habits is in the use of
      consciousness to refine the instincts such that ethical decisions can be
      'instinctive' if opened to some form of experience early on, OR a genetic
      anomaly allows for one to be born with some well defined instinct.

      The idea of instincts/habits appears to be to conserve energy by encoding
      instincts in the input areas of the neurons (or as near to as possible) and
      allow context to PUSH.

      As such, the learning of 'good habits' favours fitting in to some context
      easily and, with conversion from being reactive to proactive, take over that
      context, exploit it through being able to pre-empt context dynamics.

      The dynamic overall is inputs->instinct-filters->cell-fire-control->output -
      but this is not so linear, it is non-linear as well and so allows for
      complexity/chaos dynamics to operate.

      Of note is connections to cell-fire-control that allow for recruitment of
      other neurons into an ability to synchronise firing and so a holistic
      experience as input or as output. With that comes the opening for misfiring
      that can be useful to ESCAPE a habit/instinct.

      > Curiously, this implied that those with frontal lobe injuries were less
      > "controlled" by
      > instinct. However, there is also a fine line between lacking primative
      > directives and being
      > sociopathic. The "logical" people were, indeed, cold and calculating,
      > doing what was
      > "best" for the majority -- but that's not how we evolved. We have a
      > curious impulse to
      > protect those in our small tribe first, then consider the majority.
      >

      It covers particular-to-general dynamics as covers small world networks
      derived from the general, regular network.

      Our consciousness can handle 7+/- 2 things at once and so awareness of there
      being possibly more can elicit a sense of 'free will'.

      The left/right dichotomy is repeated front/back as it is surface/core as it
      is WITHIN left/right and on down to the neuron focus axon/dendrites and the
      FM/AM pulse/wave dynamic.

      What is of interest is the frontal lobe differences, and especially the
      dynamics of mirror neurons, between humans and monkeys where the monkeys
      cannot handle mime - in other words they lack imagination, an essential
      requirement for anticipation of events etc and learning through mime (as
      compared to mimicry)

      > The article was in the NYT and Washington Post. I always save a PDF of
      > these things when I
      > can. It is a strange and curious concept that we actually default to
      > protecting, even at our
      > own expense -- contradicting what many philosophers had theorized.
      >

      The core dichotomy is exploit/protect with the dichotomy being asymmetric
      and so exploitation is an exaggeration of protection. As such exploitation
      is a property of the differentiating, protection of the integrating.

      A dichotomy covering context is that of replace/coexist. The replace element
      equates with differentiation and positive feedback, push others away,
      amplify, puff up, take over. Emotionally this space equates with the emotion
      pair of anger/sex where both focus on replacement of context with something
      'better'. At the other end of the spectrum is grief/fear with a focus on
      disappearing into the context, blend into the crowd for protection etc.

      In basic business, an exploitation occurs, the balance police turn up and
      focus on protection against the exploitation so the exploiters try to
      exploit the protraction! (We can do it better! - for a small fee of course)

      The overall in-built cycle of flow is
      production-distribution-filtration-exchange-consumption.

      The categories are derived from self-referencing and so all of the
      categories will be found in each category when we zoom-in.

      Due to LOCAL context the intensity of each category will vary - for example
      capitalism favours minimal exchange, let market forces be the agents of
      quality control, exchange area is 'thin'; whereas more socialist bias is to
      regulations etc and so this exchange area can be 'fat'.

      > So, free will is when we reject the impulse to protect only our family or
      > tribe and do
      > something for either more people or fewer than is to be expected. One
      > scientist said, it is
      > the difference between our impulse to save the family dog and the moment
      > we pause to
      > consider our neighbors in the burning building. Curious....
      >
      >

      The issue is in the nature of the asymmetric dichotomy of
      differentiating/integrating where the fragmentation of species into
      individuals reflects the formation of small world networks from the general,
      the regular network, that is our species.

      As such, the fragmentation that comes with development favours
      fundamentalism but it also favours a focus on universals - idealised
      collectivism, 'others like us' or the religious or secular extremists.

      In humans the development of universals is strong in the form of high
      precision focus that brings out communication through universals (words) and
      development of strong bias in handedness (and so a universal approach).

      The benefits of universals are in the precision possible. The price is in
      trying to impose a universal on local context without customisation.

      Chris.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.