"differentiate v.
1 distinguish, discriminate, contradistinguish, separate, contrast, oppose, set off or apart, tell apart: They
must learn how to differentiate one species from another.
2 modify, specialize, change, alter, transform, transmute, convert, adapt, adjust: All
organisms possess the power to differentiate special
organs to meet special needs.
integrate v. combine, unite,
blend, bring or put together, assemble, merge, amalgamate, join, knit, mesh, consolidate, coalesce, fuse; US desegregate:
We must integrate all the parts into a coherent whole. Several cultures have been well
integrated into our community."
Oxford Dictionary.
The method of differentiation is a process where the objective is to clearly identify a particular amongst many. The process thus acts to zoom-in upon a 'something', isolate it, and zoom-in further to acquire details where the details themselves become 'somethings'. This process reflects the use of recursion where, as the process concentrates focus on a something, it differentiates within the previously differentiated and so on, and from there identifies the contents of that something until all elements, all parts, of the something have been clearly laid-out and in doing so has that something, as a whole, been identified.
What is important to note is that the 'zoom-in' process reflects INTENT, where a genetically-sourced intention is always to differentiate and/or integrate 'something' and as such there is always a 'reason' for these processes, a reason that need not go beyond the habits of differentiating and integrating; as such we can idly, unconsciously, be differentiating/integrating the everyday and it is a difference that attracts our attention, this attraction reflecting our genetically-driven 'need' to identify, adapt-to, adopt, or to replace.
The methodology of recursion is where, once I make the distinctions of A and NOT-A, something as compared to all else, any attempt to go further in the analysis reflects taking the original distinctions of A/NOT-A and applying the A/NOT-A dichotomy to each element within the dichotomy, thus I zoom-in on the A and try to identify purer aspects of A as well as those aspects that are more NOT-A. This process means I am trying to differentiate all of the parts of what is under analysis, where the differentiation can be at the local level of what is WITHIN something, or at the more general level of relationships BETWEEN somethings, the latter being that I need to differentiate the nodes, the objects, between which there are relationships. There are energy distributions at work here and from them develops the Normal, or Gaussian, Distribution that is tightly related to the use of recursion of dichotomies, as show below:
What is also noteworthy is that the derivation of the normal distribution curve as a 'smooth' curve is in fact false in that focusing on the recursion part of the diagram (fixed to the Y axis) at the fine levels of differentiations the 'continuum' of possible energy states is in fact 'lumpy' in that it is made-up of the stringing-together of PAIRS that reflect different energy levels derived from the recursion of the original pair - the elements of the dichotomy (as shown in better detail in the recursion diagram). As covered later in this page, there are interesting properties and methods resulting from these perspectives including identification of something by implications and the ability to flesh-out whole sections as if 'stand alone' in that the recursion process encodes the whole in all parts (and so the 'lumpy'-ness that can come with this recursion).
What these diagrams reflect are the DIFFERENCES in the manner in which the brain processes approximations and that includes the concept of negation where inverse correlations 'rule':
In our species, and for that matter in all species using neurons to form brains to process information, there is a natural process where the brain oscillates such that at any particular moment the brain is in an A/NOT-A mode of operation or 'frame of mind' but the expression of the NOT-A can be done in an 'A' manner. To stick to the dichotomy of differentiate/integrate, at any one moment in time the bias in the brain's general perspective is to be focusing on differentiate OR integrate. Thus at any moment where our attention is drawn, the acting of drawing attention isolates 'something' and thus sets a context, a 'universe of discourse', within which analysis is made. This focus may recruit sub-modules of the brain, sensory neuron networks, motor neuron networks, association (inter)neuron networks, lobes within hemispheres, 'sub-brains' (limbic system, RAS etc) and these can be in different modes of operation, differentiating, integrating, or a mix of both, but in GENERAL, whatever is being analysed as a whole, will be done so in a differentiating or integrating manner and be categorised, in general, as being an expression of differentiating or integrating.
The differentiate/integrate oscillation process, when interpreted as what is POSSIBLE at any one moment, leaves us with initially TWO general choices, differentiation or integration. Thus at M0 (moment 0), when something new attracts our attention, we can have two choices from which to make an initial categorisation of what has attracted our attention, and one of which we will select or just 'be in' at that moment. If we continue our focus on 'something' and pass from M0 to M1 (moment 1) our set of POSSIBLE choices has in fact jumped from two to four in that the M0 set of choices serves as a context within which we make the M1 set of choices. The combination of these possible choices means that at M1 we have choices of qualities that are useable to describe the something as stemming from the processes of:
(1) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects 'pure' differentiation and as such a focus on the 'dot', the 'thing', an object unique from all others, but there is also an aire of the final object being WITHIN another, the second differentiation is made within that of the first such that we see a development path from general to particular.
(2) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of differentiate set at M0. This reflects firstly differentiating to then integrate. This reflects identifying all of the 'parts' and then integrating them into a 'whole' - the focus is on 'this WITH that' but the integration done WITHIN that which was originally differentiated.
(3) M1 - Differentiate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects firstly integrating to then differentiate. This reflects a form of grouping and then differentiating the group(s) from others/each other; - the focus is on 'this FROM that', as with pure differentiation, but with a group emphasis, as reflected in the root distinction at M0 of integrate.
(4) M1 - Integrate WITHIN the context of integrate set at M0. This reflects pure integration and as such a focus on an identification based on uniting everything and from that we can imply a 'whole' (to assert a whole, to explicitly identify it requires an act of differentiation). There is a focus here on recruitment of context to establish identity, as compared to (1) where the focus is more on assertion of self and so of context.
As we maintain our focus on 'something', combined with the choice of differentiate/integrate at each moment, due to the simple passage of TIME we are in fact using passive recursion from which to derive a single quality we can associate with whatever it is we are analysing. The passivity is in that we are not intentionally using recursion, we are just focused and oscillating in our choices of differentiate/integrate, it is the passage of time that forces the recursion to appear. (an exercise here is in the juxtapositioning of any two words from the dictionary and 'reflecting' on that association, if there is any 'meaning'. If there is no initial meaning, no instant recognition (e.g. white flour), the continued focus will shift reflection from the face-value of the words to what is behind them, their associations to other words. The passive reflection will allow things to 'pop' into the mind. This process reflects the passive recursion going on as you analyse and so derive a set of possible meanings from which to choose one (or two etc) )
Our memory systems allow us to 'paint' something we have focused upon as, say, reflecting a quality derived from 'integrate within differentiate', and store that categorisation such that we can recall it and reflect some more later. This means that the categorisations can take place over milliseconds or centuries but each categorisation, each 'something', be it from reflections on the Universe to reflections on knitting or an instant response to something (based on the moment + memories), will use the SAME general method of category formation.
Using recursion, once a category level has been reached within a specific context, so you do not have to repeat the recursion - the memory systems recall where you left-off the last time such that you can use the stored categories or reflect some more and add more. Thus the M0-M1 moments mentioned above can 'start' where a past analysis left-off and as such we can use more refined categories than the original four identified above that are used more for 'new' sensations, unknowns rather than knowns (there is an issue here regarding the concept of 'first impressions' which are often hard to change. More on this later)
Besides deriving new sets of categories, or more so new elements of the one set of generic categories, the use of analogy and metaphor allows us to recruit a successful set of categories, previously derived from the generic set and associated with a different perspective/discipline, and use that set to describe the 'new' perspective/discipline. This recruitment and abstraction process is due to the fact that all of the perspectives, all with seemingly 'different' labels and so 'unique', are in fact metaphors for the brain's differentiation/integration processing that is the common ground for all disciplines in general - this reflects the concept of isomorphism where the different disciplines are in fact the one discipline with elements having their name changed (e.g. as in from 'object' to 'car' etc)
The only way to capture the many aspects of a generic meaning of a category is to bind the category to a context where this binding is in the form of a word or symbol that takes the general 'differentiation/integration' elements of the category and ties them, integrates them, with the context through the use of a word. For example, we all, as species members, have a sense of 'wholeness' but there are an infinite number of ways to describe/associate the sense of 'wholeness' with 'out there'. Furthermore, 'in here' allows us to differentiate GENERAL senses of 'wholeness', I can have a whole that is sourced from continued differentiation, I zoom-in to the level of a 'dot' and that 'dot' can be interpreted as a 'whole', a unique form. On the other hand I can link an infinite number of dots to give me an increasing sense of wholeness, derived here by integration (but in doing so only allowing an implicit sense of 'wholeness', see more on this later).
The process of integration is a process where the objective is to link and sum relationships between things and as such establish a sense of 'wholeness'. This process functions WITHIN a whole as I sum relationships, as well as BETWEEN 'wholes' such as integration of semi-autonomous modules within the individual to enable the full expression of the individual.
It is from the realm of the 'everyday' that we as individuals/collectives etc extract sensations to analyse and as such the realm of the everyday is a 'balanced' realm of integration/differentiation and being balanced it is 'mindless', a realm of stimulus/response where the focus is on the use of habits/instincts. What is implied here is that further differentiation is applied to this 'balanced' realm and as such the act of differentiation is an act of exaggeration with the purpose of establishing clear identification of sensations and as such an intent to refine the balanced state of the everyday, although at times the intent is to distort the balance in favour of self/collective - this initially reflects a focus on protection in the form of camouflage to distort, to 'fuzz' boundaries, to cause interferences and so blend-in with the context OR to exaggerate and so stick out more than usual as a form of threat or attraction.
The process of exaggeration and the acts of identifying and re-identifying allows for the development of a hybrid 'everyday' made-up of the properties of the Universe as well as the exaggerations of our identifications that then become part of an 'everyday'. As such this hybrid everyday becomes increasingly symbol-containing and reflects attempts to be more and more precise in identifications through exaggerations.
As such, there is a 'dimension of precision' at work where energy levels, in the form of degrees of exaggeration to identify something, determine overall perspectives. As such, these levels reflect an overall expression of as power law.
The differentiation processes, once complete, will often require re-integration to restore balance. For example, I can strip a car engine into all of its parts and using integration WITHIN the context of stripping the engine create a very refined, very ordered, very clear, parts list of the engine. I will then need to put the engine back together again and in doing so identify relational processes that function within the engine as it is running; e.g. the adjustment of, fine tuning of, distributor cap, tappets etc etc to ensure optimum operation - I usually cannot just put the parts back together and immediately turn the engine on to be used. This process of synchronisation reflects the integration processes required at the level of dynamics WITHIN the context of the engine and it is this synchronisation process that can make an engine 'transcend' its 'normal' operational parameters (to experience this, let your car engine run for 10 months and then get it tuned... or join a racing team and witness the almost continuous focus on tuning to get that extra 'grunt' out of a standard, an 'everyday', car.)
At this level of differentiation, the car engine, although 'complete' and tested, tuned etc., is sterile, it does nothing other than be something nice to look at and admire for its precision in engineering. To experience the full expression of the engine we need to place the engine in a context, inside of a car, aircraft, boat, etc etc and this process reflects the integration of the engine with other modules (chassis, steering, hydraulics etc) such that 'inferior' engineering in the other modules can affect engine performance but that performance, although noticeable, is not located in the engine but in the relationships to the other modules - and so more 'tuning' is required but now at a 'general' level. As such our integration issues have moved from a focus WITHIN a particular to a focus BETWEEN particulars.
This activity of differentiation/integration focuses across different levels, from the particular to the general, and reflects some fundamental properties of the human brain in operation. Thus the differentiation and integration processes described above re the car engine are identical to the process of creating an ontology - a parts list of reality, of 'being' where the ontology can be well formed etc but is sterile until it is put out into the Universe for a 'test drive' and from that has to go through 'tuning' until we get it 'right'.
This test drive results in the gaining of data useful for refining the integration processes of engine and car with the everyday such that the more refined the car so the more integrated it is with the context such that it is easy to use in the context. This process of integration seems to be reflected in our species in the form of instincts and habit formations where a habit reflects a response to a stimulus that is resident in the context such that the context PUSHES the individual's behaviour in that a stimulus from the context can elicit a response that is too quick or too unconscious for the conscious levels of the individual to process. As such, there is a sensitivity to context but it is universal in that it is hard coded as an instinct and as such there is no adjustments possible to vary the habit/instinct.
This 'push' nature is reflected in the discovery of the encoding of instincts and habits in the dendrites of neurons where the dendrites are the 'bush' of input sensors for the neuron and as such, when encoded with habits and instincts, act not only as raw receivers of sensory and feedback data, but also as filters of that data such that a change in weather conditions can set-off hormones that set-off instincts in the form of growing winter coats or molting for summer.
With this encoding of instincts/habits there is a strong focus on energy conservation, optimisation, in that the individual does not need to continually, consciously, monitor the context for changes (this has its downs as well though - uncommon, unseasonable weather conditions can 'fool' the habits into setting-off responses that are too early or too late and a stressful, novel, situation can lead to the expression of an 'out of context' habit/instinct response - compensatory behaviour for an anxiety)
Overall, the habit formation process reflects integration of patterns of behaviour to ensure integration with at least the immediate context and as such reflects a bias to the protection of the individual/species, ensuring quick, instinctive, responses to change. However, there is also allowance for these habits to become tools of proactive behaviour where the 'stimulus/response' to the moment is recruited and abstracted to serve as a stimulus/response for some future event; thus the habits reflect the context and as such allow for 'planning' of behaviours, for pre-empting changing conditions in that context (e.g. predicting the presence of sources of food now available as the ice covering a river starts to melt).
Overall we can call the process of habit formation the Transformation function in that the process allows for changes in expressions (shape shifting) without change to core senses of identity and as such reflects the core sense of identity as we find dominating the discipline of analytical, or formal, logic which is the logic of Mechanics.
What the habit development shows us is the adaptation to sameness and as such the habituation to sameness in the species. As such at the conscious levels of operation we are more attuned to detecting differences which is understandable in the context of a possibly hostile environment and as such can also consciously vary the intensity of a habit/instinct response to a stimulus and as such so a context sensitivity beyond that which has been 'programmed' in habits/instincts.
The detection of differences means the demand for differentiation skills, skills that can 'zoom-in' to identify subtle differences that could mean huge consequences if not noticed quickly. Since the 'habit' process puts an individual on 'auto pilot' so it is advantageous to develop some alternative system for processing the environment and this seems to be done at the neuron level through the process of synchronisations, where this activity is managed at the neuron body that functionally comes AFTER the habit-encoded dendrites. The neuron body controls the firing of the neuron and can have inhibiting/exciting connections to other neurons etc all of which act to synchronise responses.
Synchronisations allow for a 'holistic' response of a lifeform to a stimulus but also allows for 'errors' in processing where a synchronisation anomaly can introduce a novelty to a habitual response. This novelty could be in the form of an error but also in the form of an innovative act that serves to improve the relationship of individual to context and, through the learning mechanisms, lead to the recruitment and abstraction of this 'novel' behaviour to become integrated as part of the habit. This novelty also includes the possibility of escaping a situation where the habit is not working and as such of 'transcending' a situation. Overall this Transcendence function reflects, using the engine metaphor, the affects on engine behaviour through synchronisation processes - tuning.
What is noticeable about this transcendence function is that it is strongly single context and as such reflects the concept of REPLACEMENT of the existing context either by a lifeform asserting its own context, or else escaping to another, more suitable context; either way the result is the current context is replaced. This replacement process is very different to the transformation function where the focus is more on retaining the existing context and strongly integrating with it.
There is the implication that the synchronisation process functions in a more 'refined' manner at the level of the individual than collective and as such it is the individual that can have 'innovative' insights, the collective having more 'adaptive' insights and as such the synchronisation processes are best identified WITHIN the individual and so fall into the realm of differentiation even though reflecting an overall integrative focus (the novelty after all IS a difference).
The transcendence function reflects properties more associatable with dialectical logic, the logic of Thermodynamics, where, for example, the replacement emphasis reflects dialectical logic's concept of "negation of a negation" where the interaction of a lifeform with context and the replace of the context allows for a 'transcendence' and as such a 'whole new ballgame'. The initial relationship of lifeform to context reflects A vs B and the resulting 'replacement' is C where the degree of replacement can vary from total replacement to partial where in the latter the transcendence recruits elements of the former context to aid in the transcendence. {there are subtle differences here re negation - see comments on Analytical Negation vs Dialectical Negation where the analytical reflects an exaggeration of, a particularisation of, the dialectical)
The dynamics of the brain mean that the transcendence/transformation dichotomy, reflective of differentations/integrations, will 'oscillate' and so express variations on their themes made-up of composites of these basics.
This transcendence function within the differentiation processes allows for variations in the experience in that the function is intense WITHIN the individual or particular collective, and more general within the context of BETWEEN individuals/collectives, collectives/species.
In fact, at the species level there seems to be instincts that 'say':
These two integration-biased instincts reflect a general protection bias for the species that, if exaggerated, as done in differentiation, can lead to 'novel' identifications of spiritual concepts that seem to 'transcend' the species/collective/individual. This does not mean there ARE such concepts but more so that the delusion/illusion that there are can easily develop, especially if there is no awareness of the properties of the data processing mechanisms in the brain of the species. The source of these 'spiritual' concepts is of course obviously in the integration processing of the species where these spiritual concepts, be it one 'God' or many, act to integrate, serving as attractors, such that the use of the 'spiritual' can serve as a source of motivation and thus be 'uplifting' at times.
Overall we can determine that the spiritual sense originates from the SPECIES and nowhere else where the original, local instincts for protection have been generalised to become useful as tools of exploitation - beliefs can move mountains. This sense of the spiritual comes from the exaggeration processes in pouring-in energy to identify 'something' in detail. That process will force the suspension of time experience (due to the reciprocal relationship of subjective time experience and increased metabolic rate in processing information) and from that suspension comes the notion of, the feeling of, the 'eternal'. This feeling, due to a lack of understanding about what creates it, has become a property of our species nature, the everyday of the Species, and as such differentiates us from the Universe:
For an analysis of how a sense of the spiritual can emerge from a misunderstanding of neurocognitive processes, see in particular the page on identifying the source of such concepts as angels and demons.
To summarise the basic properties of IDM, IDM is not reductionist. Its description IS. IDM reflects the level of meaning derivation from the mindless processing of neurons where what emerges is a basic set of distinctions, of qualities, focused upon differentiations and integrations. An extract from an email of the author to the IDM list explains this:
"The realm of the everyday of the universe is the realm of the everyday
of all species - it is the realm of mindless stimulus/response, habits and instincts. The development of the neuron
from stimulus/response to stimulus/considered_response begins the process of feedback processing within the lifetime
of an individual rather than along the Darwinian time periods that favour 'random' mutations over centuries or
local adaptations over decades; where instincts are sourced in the survival of species offspring. At our level we store 'instincts' in the form of
books, tapes, videos etc lots of 'how to' manuals and so allow the individual to 'learn' instincts as habits gainable
within the lifetime of the individual and at the same time ensure those 'off line' instincts are not dependent
on existence of the individual (unless that individual destroys the libraries etc!)
The ability to process information and store it as a memory and use that memory as feedback for future processing
takes us from the 'everyday' of the universe to a developing everyday of the species where we have developed leverage
in our adaptations to the environment. The DEGREE of value of these memories is covered in the Dimension of Precision concept where those life
forms that favour two past context frames as feedback focus on fibonacci patterns as 'meaningful' and so on.
The ability to EXAGGERATE, to differentiate 'this' from all else, the stimuli of the everyday of the universe allows
us (and other neuron-dependent lifeforms) to focus on particulars in real-time rather than be run by our instincts.
This focus on DETAILS allows us to REFINE our instincts, to learn habits and so 'improve' our position on the planet.
The exaggeration process is done through the isolation of 'something' and through input of energy we idealise this
'something' BUT in the realm of the universe this is an act of REDUCTION. Language REDUCES, is derive from, processing
of the senses down to a label and we use the label to communicate and cause resonances in other species-members
due to the labels carrying meaning that elicits the patterns of 'differentiations&integrations' we all share
as a species and where the association of feeling-to-label (taught in school etc) allows us to memorise (the labels
as such are mnemonics).
This ability to reduce things to a parts perspective, and label those parts, and use those labels to represent
those parts (and so create a map for the territory) has been so successful that we work out of that parts realm
as if it is the everyday of the universe - it isnt. It is a continually developing everyday of the species that
is a hybrid of the universe + our exaggerations.
The spoken/written word reflects acts of reduction. IDM does not deal with these tokens, it deals with the patterns
of differentiations/integrations that come out of the neurocognitive processes and serve as the base level source
of all meaning. IOW IDM focuses on the GENERAL. IDM focuses on the SPECIES. IDM focuses on FEELINGS (as abstracted
to blend, bond, bound, bind, and as sp re-labeled to the common
set of emotions )
The act of reduction is the act of moving from the general, the "AS IS" of the universe, to the particular,
the "AS INTERPRETED" of OUR universe. We move from general to particular, as identified in IDM through
such concepts as the Dimension of Precision.
This act of reduction requires exaggeration, we must distort the everyday of the universe, our perceptions of it,
to derive parts and so reduce past the 'whole' that is the integrated universe - we move from symmetry to asymmetry,
from non-local to local. (recall the hierarchy in Chinese philosophy of:
differentiated / integrated =
T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (great extension (archetype) / no extension - general)
Yin-Yang / T'ai Chi (exaggerations of the archetype, harmonics analysis / the archetype)
Yang / Yin (A/NOT-A, high precision focus - particular)
language emerges from yang/yin - it is like words taking on gender. We then apply it to try and describe the 'higher
levels' but will fail in that we need to understand the 'language' of T'ai Chi/Wu Chi to 'grok' it all, we move
back up from male/female to androgyny and to 'no distinctions' etc IDM aids in doing that.
)
IDM is basically symmetric (or as symmetric as possible given the built-in distortion of differentiations/integrations
precision issues). IDM does not care about the details, it cares about what details are possible given the set
of generic feelings, qualities, we use as categories. You can 'specialise' IDM but there is no need since all specialisations
reflect IDM and as such do a better job at the local level [see for example the pages on Mathematics, the Profiler,
and the I Ching] - IDM does not replace, it serves to integrate such that its use at the local level is as a guide
and no more. MY point re Philosophy etc is that all of these disciplines now require consideration of IDM etc in
their 'reflections' upon reality.
IDM is not biased to Hegel or Heidegger or Kant or Plato or Spinoza or God or Marx etc etc etc since it reflects
all of the particulars, all
of these reductions, in the
set of generic qualities. The application of IDM perspectives to these specialisations can aid in 'restructuring'
of the perspectives of these specialisations but as such IDM does not replace them since its realm is more general.
Being not aware of this reduction process of the species means that, for example, we derive such 'issues' as the
EPR paradox
etc., we move 'past' the everyday of the universe and try and interpret that position as if the universe.
This ability to reduce, to distill, general everyday data to precise labels is reflected in our focus on purity
where that act is an act of REDUCTION (and so the intuitive 'attraction' within the species to alchemy etc. Fundamentalism,
and so specialisation, is reductionist, down to the 'answer' being 'God' or 'Darwin' or E=MC2 etc etc)
From that reduction process, where we derive rich language, so we increase our knowledge but in the form of representations,
words, not in the form of the 'thing itself'. We more than often lose sight of this and so when 'in' a specialisation
so we take things literally. This is fine locally but when you try to apply this to the non-local you will have
problems in that you have to step out of the box, to the box of the species, to be able to describe 'clearly' within
the realm of the non-local.
That is where IDM comes in in that an understanding of the general qualities, the properties and methods of how
the neurons work to derive species-level meaning, is required in that the generic structure of all isolations,
all specialisations, is determined by the neuron and so by the general qualities identified by IDM.
Thus, I say that IDM is not reductionist. To describe it IS since we do not have the time to communicate 'objects
and relationships' as high precision empathy (or a 'blending' of minds, we cannot share the same space). We have
to reduce these feelings etc to labels and use those to elicit a species-level quality linked to a specific context.
IDM is linked to habit formations, intuitions etc etc that serve the reduction but as such are not reductionist
in that IDM functions from the level of the communication system we use as a species.
Note that this parts perspective and development of language gets into the 'hard coding' of metonymy where part
elicits whole. (and so a probabilities perspective)." Now lets move on to refining the original distinctions
made by IDM.
