(copyright © 2008 C. J. Lofting)
From a focus on the derivation of categories of meaning from the oscillations of our brains across a dichotomy of WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating, a discovery has been made in reference to the evolution of language from mediation dynamics where we move from basic category formation to the ability to make analogies using the derived categories. This step reflects the communication of details of categories through distinctions of patterns of sameness and difference by the use of analogy to other categories and so brings out the beginnings of language. What is noteworthy is that these analogies are 'hard coded' into the methodology of deriving meaning from self-referencing. Furthermore, we see here the requirement for some depth in category making before language can emerge.
An additional observation is that the adaptation of our brains to light has brought out a bias to our visual system in information processing. In this adaptation our eyes cover a dichotomy of fovea/para-fovea. The fovea is focused on details, on differentiating, as is our para-fovea (surrounds the fovea and so brings out the emergence of details processing from the middle) more focused on edge detections and so pattern matching and generic differentiating to enable strong integrating to form patterns. The identified focus on pattern matching equates with the use of analogy-making and metaphorcation as properties of generic meaning-derivation. The IDM work on self-referencing clearly brings out the derivation of analogy from self-referencing of an asymmetric dichotomy as is done by the neurology in the processing of information.
Analysis of the dynamics of the brain brings out a focus on mediation where the asymmetry of brain hemispheres forms an asymmetric dichotomy.
The formation of an asymmetric (1:many) dichotomy is the formation of a dichotomy focused on mediation. The closest form of a mediation dichotomy to the completion of mediation is an asymmetric dichotomy of 1:2 where the intent is to derive a precise, exclusive OR, assertion of A from NOT-A and so form a 1:1, symmetric, dichotomy.
The ACT of differentiating comes with a focus on getting to a point, clear assertion of X from all else. From a neurological perspective where we focus on sensory dynamics and extracting data from that, the more specialist term of WHAT has been used. It actually covers what,who,which. The ACT of integrating comes with a focus on linking points and as such comes with a coordinate system element. As such integrating lacks the precision of differentiating when we focus on WHAT, the best it can do is focus on WHERE. (WHERE actually covers where, when, how - all terms that come with a focus on connections rather than the discrete). The dynamics of our brains show us a focus on the use of WHAT and WHERE in information gathering in the form of an asymmetric dichotomy - WHAT/WHERE. |
|---|
In our brains the mediating dichotomy is manifest in various forms but the most behaviour determining is that of left/right and front/back dimensions in our neo-cortex – and so we include here the left-hemisphere/right-hemisphere. These hemispheres are asymmetric where the biases are to the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy, generalisable to the differentiate/integrate dichotomy and reflecting precision issues such that we have a 1:2 relationship (differentiating/what reduces to a point; integrating/where to no less than two points (needs a coordinate system) and so the dichotomy is asymmetric)
The specialist terms for hemisphere differences are in the what/where dichotomy where the dichotomy applied to the brain is well recognised and documented to such a degree it is an axiom contained in introductory texts on neurosciences. E.g.
"Two pathways from the striate cortex to extrastriate regions convey prominent streams of information. One pathway flows for V1 [main area of visual input processing] to the temporal lobe (ventral pathway or "what" pathway) and conveys analysis of stimulus features and their conjunctions, and ultimately the information is used to carry out form discrimination and object identification. The other pathway projects from V1 to the parietal lobe (dorsal or "where" pathway) and carries information about a stimulus motion and localisation within visual space" p51-52 Gazzaniga, M.S., et al (1998) "Cognitive Neuroscience : The Biology of the Mind" Norton
The 'WHAT/WHERE' reflects properties of the general dichotomy of differentiating/integrating and that dichotomy maps to the brain from the neuron to left/right, front/back, surface/core etc of the neocortex and out into our collectives through the socialisation of individuals.
The differences in oscillations across this ASYMMETRIC dichotomy are covered in such work as:
Banich, M.T., "Hemispheric Interaction" IN p 270 Hugdahl,K., & Davidson, R.,(eds)(2004)"The Asymmetrical Brain" MITP
Banich,M., & Karol (1992) "The sum of the parts does not equal the whole: Evidence from bihemispheric processing" Journal of Experimental Psychology :Human Perception and Performance 18, 763-784
Friedman,A & Polson,M.,(1981)"The hemispheres as independent resource systems: limited capacity processing and cerebral specialisation" Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance 7, 1031-1058
What is brought out by the above is that oscillations across both hemispheres is more common when dealing with the new/complex, whereas dealing with the known/simple elicits more so intra-hemisphere dynamics.If we zoom-in to the neurology we find this asymmetric dichotomy operating at all scales such that WITHIN hemispheres are pairs of lobes operating in the same manner and left/right hemispheres, as the pattern is repeated within a lobe, covering the front/back of a lobe etc.
Some points to consider with this focus on self-referencing:
Work on the hemispheres overall bring out a fractal dynamic at work where we find:
(1) asymmetry ACROSS hemispheres showing BIASES in that one side is more differentiating, more focused on the discrete and fine detail (usually the left) whereas the other is more focused on continuum, all is connected, integrated, as in a whole. The qualties described cover the association of WHAT with one hemisphere and WHERE with the other.
(2) Zoom-in on EITHER hemisphere and we find within the context set by (1) the SAME distinctions are present - as in WHAT and WHERE expressed in information process in ventral and dorsal pathways from back to front.
(3) Zoom-in to a particular lobe relationship and we find the SAME pattern present - for example the relationships of temporal lobe to parietal lobe.
(4) Zoom-in to a particular lobe and we find the SAME pattern at work, - for example front temporal vs back temporal.
(5) Keep zooming-in and we reach a neuron and IT shows the same dynamics but in less detail - this in the form of the pulse data of axons (FM focus) as compared to the WAVE focus of dendrites (AM focus).
(6) What we find overall is a fractal dynamic covering the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate. This moves us into consideratiom of the dynamics of self-referencing and especially the dynamics of the Chaos game in that all levels of the sensory systems and neurology cover the containment of noise where such will elicit spontaneous order through self-referencing.
(7) Since the differentiating/integrating dichotomy is asymmetric it brings out a focus on being a tool of mediation and so covers all communications at all levels of our being, and by implication that covers our social dynamics.
(8) Within our neurology is a hard-coded, asymmetric dichotomy labelled as fight/fliight. THAT dichotomy, when self-referenced elicits the basic category of emotions and they cover the initial forms of communication within the species and with other neuron-dependent species. see my page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html
We find that in self-referencing an asymmetric dichotomy one elicits a set of categories covering the mediation process and reflecting different degrees of such where we work along the list of possible categories with the intent of exhausting all possibles to leave us with an actual - the exclusive OR dichotomy, and so symmetric dichotomy, we seek to assert identification of ‘something’.
If we self-reference the asymmetric, mediating, dichotomy without an apparent context we elicit the set of representations covering acts of mediation in the form of universals – in other words our context is mediation itself.
To represent these universals we need some form of symbolism and the easiest to use is that of the abstract asymmetric dichotomy of 0/1 (the symmetric form would be +1/-1). Thus self-referencing this dichotomy will present us with strings of 0s and 1s also known as ‘bits’ (BInary digiTS). We note that in the ordering of bits we move from general to particular as we loop in our act self-referencing.
We note here the following:
"Anything that can be represented can be represented (in principle) as a string of binary digits via an isomorphic mapping, ... The process is similar to producing a string that is rather like the record of an extended game of twenty questions, with 1s conventionally representing affirmation and 0s representing negation. A successful series of guesses produces a truth table row that represents the original thing." (http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/jdc/information/information.html)
When we add-in our self-referencing brain dynamics we find a hierarchy present where the above mentioned twenty questions come in an order from general to particular and so each question is placed within a context determined by all of the previous questions.
In the context of mediation all we are doing is ordering the bits to cover the set of all oscillations of what/where as we mediate – and so the set of POSSIBLE expressions of mediation.
(personality types represent styles of mediation with contexts and so a collection of preferred strategies in dealing with contexts in general)
(in mediation the goal is a 1:1 dichotomy such that a 1:many dichotomy maps the element of the ‘many’ to a set of POTENTIALS rather than ACTUALS)
Up to here we have focused on deriving bit patterns that represent styles of mediation. The issue now is in clear identification of those styles, we try to elicit some meaning from the patterns. We can do this due to the simple fact that mediation in our brains is HARD CODED in the form of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy, where such applies at all scales of our being, from social behaviours to hemisphere behaviours to neural behaviours at the level of the single neuron (axon/dendrites dichotomy reflects differentiating(pulse,FM)/integrating(wave,AM))
Thus our bit patterns can be translated into representing patterns of differentiating/mediating. For example, the bit represented as ‘0’ covers the integrating nature and as such the ‘many’ of a 1:many dichotomy – the dichotomy format of mediation. What is implied here is that, in the context of our goal in mediation is to derive a 1:1 dichotomy, the ‘many’ represents a pool of POTENTIALS and so ‘0’ covers this sense of potentials rather than actuals, representable by ‘1’.
Further consideration of the properties of differentiating and integrating bring out the object nature of differentiating, the sense of the discrete and so of ‘thing-ness’. On the other hand the nature of integrating covers the sense of the connected, of relatedness and so of the space within objects and the space in-between objects.
Given these considerations we can identity a sense of OBJECT with differentiating and from that extract the notions of WHOLES and PARTS. Continuing on with the consideration, we can identify a sense of RELATIONSHIP with integrating and from there extract the notions of STATIC relationships (covering the sharing of space) and DYNAMIC relationships (covering the sharing of time).
Thus, given the generic concepts of “mediation by differentiation” and “mediation by integration” we now move to levels of finer details (and include the bit representations) with:
OBJECTS:
111 - Mediation of wholeness through differentiation
000 - Mediation of wholeness through integration
101 - Mediation of partness through differentiation
010 - Mediation of partness through integration
RELATIONSHIPS:
110 - Mediation of static relationships through differentiation
001 - Mediation of static relationships through integration
100 - Mediation of dynamic relationships through differentiation
011 - Mediation of dynamic relationships through integration
When we introduce local CONTEXT these symbols change labels but NOT qualities/meanings. Thus when we introduce the asymmetric dichotomy of yang/yin we introduce a context of the ancient Chinese “Book of Changes” aka the I Ching categories of mediation. On the other hand, introduce the mediating dichotomy of fight/flight and we move into the context of the dynamics of human emotions. In each case the labels and context change but the qualities/categories of mediation do not – as such all asymmetric dichotomies are isomorphic in that they all cover the categories of mediation applied to some local context. Thus it is possible to use one specialisation derived from dichotomisations to describe/represent by analogy/metaphor any other specialisation. An example of this is in the Emotional I Ching work.
In part 2 of this focus on categories of mediation we will identify 4096 categories of mediation also serving as sources of analogy making (and so communication of pattern information through sameness./difference) that serve as the ground for all mediations with reality and as such the roots of language. We can use less (8, 64) or more (16+million) categories in communication but issues of resolution power and pragmatism step in to leave us with a ‘best fit’ window of categories ranging from 64 to 4096 (64^2) and the use of analogies across those categories to derive more meaning.
To summarise the communications development dynamics overall:
As a species we are born with an initial hypothesis about reality in the form of a set of instincts. These instincts are general when compared to their late refinement through links to habits due to interactions with the environment.
Included in that set of instincts is a method of communication derived from self-referencing a dichotomy, that of fight/flight and so a realm of rich emotional expression.
The focus in social species is on communication between members of the species and so a foundation in SAMENESS. SAMENESS comes with symmetric perspectives and covers the use of analogies and metaphors in communication.
As such, we START in an organic, vague, SYMMETRIC form in the context of development, as we find, for example, in seeds. Combined with our foundational symmetric form (that, from a hierarchy perspective covers more a vague, nested hierarchy) is an ability to link with an opening to the environment through the exposure to DIFFERENCE and the ability to adapt to context through refining our instincts through habit formation and LOCAL CONTEXT developments. As such we have a play between, from an energy perspective, is a focus on far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium ASYMMETRIC dichotomy
The PARTICULAR nature of LOCAL context brings out a hierarchy that is strongly non-nested (pyramidal) and focuses on CONTROL issues as we deal with differences and (a) try to identify samenesses that allow us to communicate about the differences, as well as (b) protect against any differences that could damage the whole - done through limiting damage to parts through the control focus of the hierarchy. This hierarchy is also symmetric (strongly A/NOT-A) but being non-nested and rigid, lacks the flux, the flat, web-like hierarchy of our species-nature.
As the web-like form is a logical hierarchy and is trusting, and so allowing for dependencies across hierarchy levels, so the pyramid-like form is non-trusting with clear syntax-focused rules that limit dependencies across level and allow for semi-autonomous dynamics of each level with the context - things brings out a PARTS bias but also an issue of metonymy where part can be interpreted, and can interpret itself, as if the whole.
The interaction BETWEEN the pyramid that focuses on DIFFERENTIATIONS and the web that focuses on INTEGRATIONS (and so two forms of symmetric dichotomy where the elements are of the form differentiating/differentiating or integrating/integrating) is through ASYMMETRIC dichotomy formation (differentiating/integrating) and the oscillations across that dichotomy eliciting (representing self-referencing) a dimension of POSSIBLE categories of meaning that through positive feedback translate integrated elements into differentiated elements (XOR focus - use of positive feedback) as it does differentiated elements into integrated elements (EQV focus - use of negative feedback)
The asymmetric dichotomy is ALWAYS a dichotomy of mediation and, neurologically, the oscillations across the asymmetric dichotomy of differentiating/integrating only occurs when we are dealing with the NEW or COMPLEX and so need mediation dynamics. This includes the processing of paradox at the sensory level as it does at what we can call the psychic level where our drive to argue brings out mediation dynamics. For example, the issues of the mind/brain dichotomy.
If we have a label (and so a marker of previous experience) or some simple, single hemisphere task, there is NO oscillation across both hemispheres and so no mediation on a grand scale. As such this is an energy conserving task where mediation abilities are withdrawn when no longer needed and we fall back on stimulus/response behaviours.
The extractions of essential aspects of difference perform the task of habit formation and (a) add to the symmetry where potential links in the web become actualised, and (b) dumb-down differences to allow for ease in communication across the species.
The more developed a culture becomes, and so we reflect the development of collectives within the species and so differences become internalised, the more the symmetry is activated and the more we start to see sameness across disciplines where the potentials of the web become more and more actualised.
This dynamic NATURALLY leads to what we can call a post-modernist perspective where there is a focus on communication through symmetry to the point where 'any metaphor will do' - and with this also comes fragmentation of the whole through specialisations, a plethora of languages have emerged from research onto differences but the fact is these are all metaphors and behind the differences is sameness (as covered in my IDM pages on categories) )
BUT - with the development of our singular nature, our sense of SELF, as compared to our species-linked particular-general nature, comes unique differences in the form of consciousness - and so the unrepeatable, unreflectable (we try though, through use of mirror neurons - another product of symmetry).
The advantage of a singular perspective, operating WITHIN the ground of our particular-general, species, perspective, is the uniqueness allows for assertions of a 'difference that can make a difference' where from one mind comes a perspective to change the world.
This development of the unique covers the development from the symmetric to the asymmetric or more so to the personal symmetric where the relationship of self-to-others is asymmetric but to self is still symmetric in the form of a pyramidal hierarchy with consciousness a level in that hierarchy and able to regulate lower levels of the hierarchy (as can a level of our genetic traits - emotion - overwhelm consciousness at times)
The WEB hierarchy as such covers the space in-between nodes, whereas the space in-between nodes in a pyramid hierarchy is a well defined border as a 'level' marker in that it is the level that is well developed (and even web-like within - something that encapsulation allows for, we take a ratio and discretise it and so it becomes a constant and mapped to a level of a pyramid format.)
Thus there is (a) top-down/bottom-up dynamics across the hierarchies of pyramid/web in an asymmetric form, and there is (b) top-down/bottom-up dynamics WITHIN each type of hierarchy, pyramid or web. In the realm of XOR, pyramid formats this relationship is LOGICAL where the assertion of A acts to regulate the NOT-A as there is a relationship in reverse that is more brought out from the realm of EQV.
The point (!) with symmetry is that it comes out of randomness and so differences and the asymmetric in that to have symmetry you need aggregations of sameness and so determinism. Thus as a SOCIAL species, as a species, there is present sameness through genetics alone and so development of symmetry from asymmetry. Once the species is formed this development does not stop, as we see in current times with the development of post-modernism where the symmetrisation of the body had continued into that of our social consciousness where difference is seen as metaphor and so 'any metaphor will do' in interpreting/communicating reality.
The price of socialisation and so symmetrisation combined with unique consciousness (and so absolute asymmetry) is the (a) fragmentation of the species into ever more specialist collectives each considering their perspective as if THE perspective (and all encapsulated and symmetric), and (b) borders eliciting more fragmentation and so the whole context of the species 'speeding up', and (c) reconfiguration of the symmetry of the species to fit in to a changing context. This includes the development of Anarchistic perspectives due to the self-regulation drive of the individual and the re-integration of those fragments where the competitive gives way to an emerging cooperative pressure - from a hierarchic perspective, the web fragments to elicit pyramids that fall back into another web and so on - thus the dynamics of pyramid/web across and within the species brings out dynamics of the species spanning millennia where such are not recognised by a generation since these dynamics our outside of their experiences - to be in a 'web' phase makes that phase 'reality' whereas at the scale of the species it is but a part of 'reality'.
As for the crisp/vague dichotomy, (another asymmetric dichotomy often interpreted as if opposites and so symmetric)- implicit here is that the pyramid overall is more crisp than the web (the web can have nodes of 'crispness' but even then not comparable to the crispness of the pyramid). But with the feedback across the types (difference-to-sameness) so the crisp adds content to the vague such that the symmetric is converted from a potential form to an actual form and in doing so goes through a reverse conversion from a small world network to a regular network. Neurologically this is reflected in the development intuition from expose to differences and covers the XOR interactions of rote learning from which emerges a web form of rich associative memory due to the potentials of mind being actualised. We can see a demonstration of such in, for example, the constructive/destructive wave interference patterns that form in the EPR-elated experiments in quantum mechanics where the specialist distinction of 'an experiment in physics' is a general distinction of what you get when you self-reference a dichotomy.
Thus POTENTIALS are in the form of a regular, all is connected (and so symmertric) network that is then exposed to local context (a random network) and so forms a small world network. BUT, due the perpetual exposure and the focus on increase in universal knowledge so the small world, over time, fills in with information such that it can lose its small world aspects due to 'traditional' connections being broken down by universal discoveries - and so all potentials gets actualised rather than a subset. Full actualisation reflects the completion of a journey from pure symmetry (potentials) through local differences (asymmetry) to pure symmetry (but now as actualisation - and so as flux, small local energy percolations etc but overall symmetry retained).
The root for understanding all of this is in what our brains can extract from mediation with the context - be it real or imagined. At the level just prior to specialisations is a general level of (a) basic categories of mediation derived from mindless self-referencing and (b) the emergence of analogy-making, congruent with the development of pattern matching in low level neural systems or more so those developed enough to allow for the categories formed to elicit analogies (about 6+ levels self-referencing is required to give us 64 categories that through analogy give us 64 analogies to each category and so over 4096 'meanings' for a basic language to develop.)