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

[existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing : Logic etc

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... ...as a consequence of anti-symmetry/symmetry interactions in general and the development and adaptation of neurology to such an environment in particular.
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
      > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 4:11 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing
      > Chris:
      > Where does all of that logic you use actually come from?
      > I mean this as a philosophical question.
      > It is a question about the foundation of logic.
      > It is a question about the legitimacy of logic as a tool for
      > scientific inquiry.
      > Where does logic, ITSELF, come from?
      > Thinking?
      > Experience?
      > Mathematics?
      > Where?

      ...as a consequence of anti-symmetry/symmetry interactions in general and
      the development and adaptation of neurology to such an environment in

      What the neurology brings out is the anti-symmetric bias developing from the
      symmetric allowing for increased precision in identifying details. This
      includes the development of the XOR operator from demands for clear edge
      detection necessary in the processing of objects - thus the excluded middle
      allows you to see your car parked next to a tree and 'in front of' or
      'beside' or 'behind' - rather than have tree and car 'flow' into each other.
      This interchangability state of 'flow' is present in the EQV, equivalence,
      operator of symmetry and covers the sharing of a space as compared to the
      prohibition of such.

      These simple adaptations to sensory processing have served well, to the
      level where they are grounds for the development of reasoning and on into

      All of the logic operators are symmetric and so bring out their roots in
      symmetry (a right hemisphere focus overall, with an emphasis on connectivity
      issues - relationships) OTHER THAN the IMP operator (implies). ITS
      asymmetric nature brings out its development in the generation of reason and
      on into development of language.

      The strongest sensory development has been vision where these logic
      operators have been well employed - our parafovea for example developed
      prior to the fovea, which it surrounds, and covers edge detection (forms).
      The fovea then developed to bring out a focus on details. As such the eye
      overall can be mapped to right/left brain dynamics and so
      anti-symmetry/symmetry processing.

      I have appended an abstract covering the clear differentiation of brain into
      reasoning biases covering probabilistic reasoning (left hemi bias) and
      deductive reasoning (right hemi bias). This dynamic brings out the
      anti-symmetric(part)/symmetric(whole) interactions in dealing with reality.
      Thus we are born with a set of instincts as our core hypothesis about
      reality (right hemi equates with the objective, law, and so "as is") - these
      are then refined and overlayed with local context customisations, specialist
      hypotheses used in dealing with reality (and so a focus on "as

      The oscillations across the brain bring out the dynamics of
      induction-abduction vs deduction. The skill levels required mark the
      differences between the reasoning skills of our mammal cousins vs our skills
      where it is the high level differentiating and connectivity of our neurology
      compared to theirs that makes the 'difference than makes a difference'
      (together with the lengthy period in developing into an adult)

      The emergence of asymmetric thought from symmetric thought is detectable in
      the social realm where symmetric thinking dominates. In this realm the IMP
      operator (conditional) is not functioning or more so it is in the form of
      the biconditional (if and only if) - IOW symmetric thinking will translate
      any IMP states to IFF! This dynamic was originally uncovered by a
      mathematician/psychoanalyst and is delt with in two books of his:

      Matte-Blanco, I., (1975) "The Unconscious as Infinite Sets : An essay in
      Bi-Logic" London Ducworth (there is re-print available 1991 different

      Matte-Blanco, I., (1999) "Thinking , Feeling, and Being" RKP

      Also see the summary text:

      Rayner, E., (1995) "Unconscious Logic" RKP

      The above material correlates in general with my research on brain dynamics
      and self-referencing bringing out precision issues as we move right-brain to
      left-brain (in most), general to particular, approximate to precise, and
      this brings out symmetric thinking and its association with social states
      and with dream states. LACK in differentiating (be it in development or in
      the selective sleep dynamics of the brain that allows for our
      differentiating 'side' to rest and so leaving an active integrating 'side')
      brings out symmetric thinking dynamics. This is also present front/back
      where lack of frontal lobe training/development favours a symmetric
      perspective (stereo typing etc etc)

      The development of the asymmetric brings out precision languages and the
      development of anticipation and proactive states (symmetry lacks movement,
      it is reactive/instinctive - so a social "hello" is met within an immediate
      response of "hello" etc.)

      Thus there is no universal 'irrational' state, there is a lack in resolution
      power that restricts reductions to IFF forms, never to IMP forms. This lack
      in resolution power means issues with objectification and so 'cutting free'
      from something. This leads to logic such as "I hate my dad, SO he hates me,
      SO we both hate each other" - from an asymmetric perspective this is
      illogical but from a symmetric perspective it isn't - it is 'perfectly

      > Who has EVER actually shown us this origin?

      I have.

      > Don't you find it kind of ODD that logic is so taken for
      > granted that the question of the origin of logic almost never
      > comes up?

      Maybe for you, not for me - my focus is on ALL meaning and so I cover the
      development of languages and use of logic filters. Have you worked your way
      through "Categories of Mediation"?
      )http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/categoriesTheory.pdf and

      The path of development of processing DIFFERENCES brings out the dynamics of
      anti-symmetric from symmetric, and so aspects processing from whole. The
      anti-symmetric is LOCAL context, probabilities focused (subjective form,
      Bayesian stats, parts focus, risky, very fast). The visual system again
      presents good examples where presented with two instances of a class (e.g.
      two trees - and so sameness, symmetry, in general) we zoom-in for detection
      of differences (green leaves vs brown leaves etc).

      These dynamics dealing with concrete experience are also applied in abstract
      thoughts. We also note the creation of symmetry from adaptations to an
      asymmetric context, order from noise as covered in the Chaos game
      (containment of noise will elicit spontaneous order through

      > I can only think of two philosophers, right now, off the top
      > of my head, who even TRIED to touch upon this question.
      > Husserl and Heidegger.

      ;-) their problem was lack in access to current neuroscience research that
      refines perspectives; grounds speculations in basic neural dynamics of the
      species and in doing so works to establish 'fact' - given the presence of
      some indeterminacy in the form of genetic diversity! ;-)

      > What about the mathematical model of logic? Is computation
      > all there really is to logic? Is logic really just so much
      > calculation?

      As my work brings out, the serial-parallel interface in our brains is
      dominated by self-referencing and the use of the XOR/EQV operators with XOR
      covering part/whole dynamics in extracting a whole's spectrum and so parts
      list. Thus the generic categories of meaning lack grounding since they are
      general - it is the use of logic operators as filters that ground the
      meanings. (this is covered in the Categories of Mediation material, see that
      material and the focus on XOR-ing)

      The XOR material moves computation considerations from Turing machines
      (serial) to alternative forms that are parallel where such is refined
      through use of the serial (covered/summarised in the categories of mediation
      material) - Turing, Gödel, Church etc were all limited by a serial focus
      where the attraction of precision blinded them to the parallel realm that
      requires an orthogonal shift in focus.

      > I find it hard to go where you are going in your web pages
      > without having any answers to these questions about the
      > origin and status of logic, PER SE.

      To cover the whole 'roots of logic/mathematics' the IDM material covers the
      neurology generating categories that set the foundations for the classes of
      numbers used in mathematics - as it does the generation of numeracy from the
      qualitative in the form of the core distinction of positive/negative
      (good/bad etc). This dichotomy of DIFFERENCE is then fleshed out using
      sef-referencing and elements of symmetry (repetition (1,2,3), reflection etc
      ) and so develops into mathematics through set theory etc - Note that the
      XOR operator is essential for developing high precision memory systems as
      well as the compression of such data (XOR being a tool used in
      encryption/decryption and so into 'fractal' processes etc)

      > It seems to me that the AUTHORITY OF LOGIC is the one thing
      > that most needs to be CALLED INTO QUESTION in an
      > investigation of the derivation of meaning.

      I have done that in clearly identifying the roots of logic and mathematics
      in neurology and its processing of sensory data then abstracted into the
      realm of thought. The emphasis then is on the origins of the neurology circa
      600 million years ago in sponge life. The maintaining of generic form brings
      out the 'best fit' adaptation of neuron to environment and so the success of
      our maps of reality.

      The development of consciousness from speciesness covers the development of
      the asymmetric and so ability to fantasise about possible outcomes. The core
      brain dynamics makes no distinction of fact from fiction and so brings out
      the use of the SAME methodologies in processing information, be it sourced
      in reality or in imagination. Heuristics then acts to 'ground' things in
      reality or imagination (and also allows for development in the form of
      hybrid thought that allows for transcending reality 'as is' through the
      explosion of concepts and their realisation and imposition upon reality 'as

      ============= The Abstract =========
      Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
      © 2001 Oxford University Press

      New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus
      Probabilistic Reasoning
      Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
      University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
      1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

      Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of
      Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and
      Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
      Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

      Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the
      functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present
      study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission
      tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ‘set’,
      deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical
      stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily
      solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left
      brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated
      areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal
      lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala,
      but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction
      task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas.
      Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in
      inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and
      superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are
      implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge,
      operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that
      deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with
      psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also
      suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely
      independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are

      ALSO SEE:

      Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human
      reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

      (published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

      "In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences
      people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the
      rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large
      and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be
      irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this
      interpretation" (p349)
    • louise
      ... ing ... ing, & ... the ... Collider ... not ... than ... as such ... Spirituality ... out ... sense ... each ... interpretive skills ... science ... given
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
        > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 5:10 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aija Veldre
        > > Beldavs
        > > > > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 8:35 PM
        > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-
        ing, &
        > > > > Tim-ing
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > The ontological dynamic is recursive and as such reflects
        > > > > the dynamics
        > > > > > of the chaos game. That reflection demands consideration of
        > > > > > methodology and its properties and methods that can be
        > > > > confused with what is under analysis.
        > > > > > Chris.
        > > > >
        > > > > uh, as one of the science guys on the list, Chris, would
        > > you care to
        > > > > comment on the end of the world possibility this Wed.
        > > > > Sept. 10th when the mad scientists of the Large Hedron
        > > > > attempt to create their mini black hole?:)
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > ;-) it is a problem isn't it! forgive them ... for they know
        > > what they
        > > > do...?
        > >
        > > Chris,
        > >
        > > It was already obvious from your earlier remarks that you do
        > > not understand the essence of the Christian religion, nor in
        > > this instance do you see the shallowness of the disrespect
        > > revealed by your throwaway comment. Jesus understood what he
        > > meant by saying, they know not what they do, and if he was
        > > merely mortal the point is lost. As far as human frailty
        > > goes, quite often wrongdoers are perfectly aware of what they
        > > are doing, but fail to understand its significance. Of
        > > course. They are not usually philosophers, in the Greek
        > > sense of the term, interested with subjective passion in
        > > their thought. This rather solemn statement is needful,
        > > because it concerns disagreements at the list concerning
        > > Kierkegaard's view of the Christian faith, and is hardly a
        > > trifling matter.
        > >
        > ;-) you should have realised by now that I lean more to Nietzsche
        > Kierkegaard. I find any religious perspective as de-humanising and
        as such
        > agree with Marx re 'opiate of the masses' .. or was it 'people'? ;-)
        > There is a sharp distinction between spirituality vs religion.
        > comes as a property of being a social species and so elements of the
        > parallel when compared to the serial - the organic position brings
        > properties of symmetry and so a sense of 'all is connected'. This
        > serves to integrate be it between members of the species or within
        > member as singular beings. Not understanding these basics allows for
        > mis-interpretations of what is going on to a degree our
        interpretive skills
        > get out of control when not grounded in reality through use of
        > research - an example of this form of 'mis-guided' interpretation
        given by
        > a Rabbi describing 'angels' when the dynamics covered is more the
        > responding to the push of context on instincts/habits and
        > having no idea what is going on -- see
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html
        > Chris


        It is you who have no idea what is going on. You are a newbie.
        Please try to show a little humility.

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