(Copyright © 2001 C.J. Lofting)
ABSTRACT
If the human Brain is strongly rooted in core adaptations to vision/EMF, then
in any self-reference we make in our Mind’s maps of reality (the seeking of analytic truths) the root self-reference
is to LIGHT in particular, EMF in general, and as such comments along the lines of “ Light is more fundamental
than time and space” would be a ‘logical’ conclusion based on the development order of concepts - in other words
self-reference will use the categories associated with/derived by the properties and methods of EMF to describe
the more abstract ‘Mind’ notions of Time and Space such that any reduction, any search for ‘beginnings’ MUST hit
upon this ‘bedrock’ of light processing as fundamental.
Keywords: Light, Neuron, Brain, Mind, Transcendence, Transform, Representations, Maps, Self-Reference, Analytic,
Synthetic, Dialectic, Abstractions, Vision, Audition, Context, Electro-Magnetic
Forces
As identified in recent articles we can source such notions as the Law of the Excluded Middle from vision processing.
In the article “Notions in Mind from Notions in Brain” (extended version appended below) I identified a number
of abstract patterns of Mind having their source in the more concrete patterns of Brain.
As an enclosed system, Brain/Mind has emphasised self-reference to make identifications and maps of reality and
as such will recruit internal properties and methods to describe external events. If this recruitment process is
not recognised then Mind identifications can at times be taken too literally rather than identified as metaphors
expressing meanings rooted in the Brain’s function.
The emphasis on self-reference reflects Kant’s notion of analytic truths vs synthetic truths where the former uses
self-reference to emphasise truths, we stay in the box, whereas the latter uses others-reference to emphasise truths,
we step out of the box. This latter form is expressed in geometry where we have to recruit sensory system intuitions
(magnitudes, numbers as lengths etc) to express a truth; the synthetic form also introduces the concept of a dialectical
perspective with its focus on history and cyclic time rather than the more ‘eternal’ notion of time we find dominant
with the analytical perspective.
The discretisation of Mathematics attempts to convert the geometric to the arithmetic(algebraic) and so be more
‘precise’ [Mathematical induction of “just add 1” reflect self-referencing to assert another ‘truth’] where precision
is seen as being able to totally encapsulate ‘something’ - in other words precision is biased to ‘dot’ precision
rather than ‘field’ precision (this moves us into holograms and phase-space mappings as aids in precision mapping
and so the dimensionless, the dot, allows us to use fractal dimensions as well as whole dimensions in our mappings)
From a Mind perspective, as expressed in social interactions, the synthetic-dialectic perspective is geometric
where the precision is often expressed in the form of constellations, be they of Space or Time. For example, in
General Medicine the identification of symptoms form a constellation, we link the ‘dots’, and sum their individual
values to supply an IMPLICATION of the presence of a particular disease.
Further examples of constellation creations can be found in esoteric prediction systems where such social systems
as Astrology or Tarot etc are dependent on geometric forms expressed as Astrology Charts or Tarot Spreads etc.
The overall emphasis here is on pattern matching but initially ‘immediate’ patterns, patterns ‘seeable’ in the
short term (seconds, minutes, hours).
The shift from geometric to algebraic is where we call-in the specialists, we move from a ‘general’ precision,
field precision, to a ‘dot’ precision. This act encapsulates a pattern, or perceived pattern. This encapsulation
‘cuts off’ all external links, we move from the thermodynamical to the mechanical; this allows for a high degree
of focus on the pattern in question but also can miss subtle important links cut-off as a result of the encapsulation.
Any thermodynamics is now limited to ‘within’ the system, the encapsulation. Thus we can rotate, twist, that which
has been encapsulated. If the encapsulation is of a lifeform then it can ‘die’ in that internal thermodynamics
can lose vital connections with ‘out there’, however most lifeforms have a degree of self-sustenance as long as
fuel is supplied (and so some link with ‘out there’ is maintained - however the mechanistic perspective allows
for such concepts as time reversal etc, a definite ‘no-no’ in thermodynamics!, and the encapsulation means eventual
death due to entropy).
What has been cut-off in the encapsulations are usually dynamic processes, oscillations etc that are part of the
pattern’s “identity”. We can miss these since all we can use to focus is our senses or their extensions in the
form of technology and since the extensions are literally extensions of our senses so there are complex patterns
in the universe that ‘transcend’ us and as such are only capturable in the form of oscillations - see summary of
brain/mind and oscillations etc given at the end of this article.
The apparently later development of the auditory system and a finer sense of ordinality allows Brain/Mind to extend
its skill set in making maps, however, since the emphasis in the neurology seems to be on EMF processing (and of
light in particular) so it is that this emphasis forms the context out of which we identify and make our maps.
Audition has aided in improving precision but the root format of neurons etc suggests a strong visual bias in origin
of brain/mind function.
I have suggested elsewhere the roots of communications are sourced in the use of spectral exchange (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/prisms.html ) and a more recent note on another list (Existence@yahoogroups.com
- 24-11-01) seems to aid in reinforcing my points. The interesting part of the note was:
> Einstein's big lesson is that
> SIMULTANEITY IS RELATIVE.
>
>
> Is there anything absolute (universal)? It seems as if we've gotten rid of
> everything that has to do with universal notions of time and universal
> notions of space. Our space-time model can no longer have these
> once-universally accepted lines and planes. What The Principle of
> Relativity has done is to make the Light Cone absolute.
> It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the
> absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light. Light is
> more fundamental than time and space. [life energy even more so, but
> nowhere is mentioned -Anna ]
> This is such a radical departure from common sense that people have been
> struggling to make sense of it. Realize that it's more than just
> a matter of taste here. Einstein's theory makes physical predictions (which differ
> markedly from the physics of Newton). And many of these predictions have
> been experimentally tested and verified.
> (My highlight)
My point is that if the human Brain is strongly rooted in adaptations to vision/EMF, then in any self-reference
we make in our Mind’s maps of reality (seeking analytic truths) the root self-reference is to LIGHT in particular,
EMF in general, and as such the above comment re “ Light is more fundamental than time and space” would be a ‘logical’
conclusion based on the development order of concepts - in other words self-reference will use the properties and
methods of EMF to describe the more abstract ‘Mind’ notions of Time and Space such that any reduction, any search
for ‘beginnings’ MUST hit upon this ‘bedrock’ of light processing as fundamental and those properties have then
been abstracted. (This includes, for example, the Mind’s identification of the Baryon octet as a fundamental in
the roots of the universe stemming from the Brain/Visual Systems use of octet processing in the retina. See for
example Prof. Joel Isaacson’s paper:
http://www.isss.org/2001meet/2001paper/stegano.pdf
)
One alternative to this ‘hard coding’ of EMF processing is that Einstein’s work was strongly visual and as such
that fact sets the context for all further thoughts. Since all of these perspectives have a self-referencing bias
to enable precision, so when you ‘dig’ to find its roots you will discover the nature of the original context as
being ‘fundamental’ - in this case, light and vision. However, analysis of the nature of the eye and the neuron
suggest that the visual emphasis has been abstracted and so there is some ‘value’ in that visual perspectives,
as well as the more modern audition perspectives, form the bedrock from which we grow our maps.
I have added some further entries to the following list of Brain<->Mind associations as well as refined some
points.
Here is a rough list of some fundamental Mind concepts which we seem to be able to associate with more local, more mindless Brain concepts, IOW the Mind concepts are examples of the transcendence of Mind from Brain where local, mindless brain behaviours serve as sources of description for more abstract Mind experiences/behaviours. These 'higher' experiences are more than often interpreted as 'free' of Brain but this notion stems from failure to recognise that the act of transcendence means a change in perspectives, thus Mind is more abstract/universal when compared to the concrete/local nature of the Brain but uses the same neurocognitive/affective processes that function in all members of the species. (Mind can be identified as a different Mode of operation of the Brain, a shift in gears). Im the following I first identify a Brain state and then the abstract form in a Mind state [for those who have read this before, I have added some more entries so please read again]:
BRAIN : The requirement to make precise distinctions and so zoom-in for details on sensations has led to the development of object-identification, of THIS from THAT. This development seems to have a link to the visual system where we need to differentiate perceptions. There is the suggestion that the eye serves as a model for the general purpose neuron in that the receptor cells of the eye are 'specialised' dendrites, responding to light rather than neurotransmitters, the integration cells (bipolar cells) reflect the functions of the soma of the neuron and the optic nerve reflects the 'axon'. Generalisation of receptor cells, integrator (bipolar) cells, and ganglion cells reflect the general purpose neuron. Since our sense of smell etc precedes eye, [or seems to, but note that vision requires no atmosphere] the recruitment of properties of those sensory systems (e.g. the discrete mapping of smells identifies a source of object identification) by the visual system ensured the retaining of well developed senses of 'meaning' with foundations in both discrete as well as continuum processing. The advantage of the visual system is (1) its range (needs no atmosphere) and (2) refined clarity.
MIND : Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM). This concept, a fundamental distinction in analytical logic, reflects rigid EITHER/OR thinking and as such is fundamental to our achieving 'dot' precision. It is the ‘rule’ that ensures we dont see objects all sharing the same space; the rule that enforces the distinctions of “THIS” from “THAT”.
The one major problem with LEM is that it has difficulty in dealing with complex patterns in reality that allow for the perception of 'two' things occupying the same space. Resolution of these 'paradoxes' is through the presentation of the elements of the paradox one after the other - by oscillations - and so retain the exclude middle 'law'. This 'law' means that some complex patterns of reality can never be explicitly described, all we can do is identify by implication. This notion is applicable to the idea of Mind from Brain in that there are complex Mind states that cannot be located 'precisely' in the brain, at best you get 'oscillations' where perspectives change from a static emphasis to a dynamic emphasis and so on; as such Mind is ‘mercurial’, as are any other complex patterns derived from transcendence.
BRAIN : The emphasis on making WHAT/WHERE distinctions due to the capabilities of the sensory systems allows for a high degree of precision in identification.
MIND : The abstraction of the WHAT/WHERE into the notion of OBJECTS/RELATIONSHIPS allows for developing
refined maps of reality and the use of self-reference expressed in recursion/orthogonal mappings allows for derivation
of precise sets of meanings that become recruited for mapping ‘out there’. The basic set of meanings are associated
with the distinctions of:
WHAT: OBJECTS
OBJECTS : WHOLES & PARTS
WHERE: RELATIONSHIPS
RELATIONSHIPS : STATIC & DYNAMIC
Addition of qualifiers allows for a useful set of meanings usable in any context. Possible qualifiers are: implicit/explicit,
contracting/expanding, negative/positive, context/text, background/foreground e.g.
implicit static relationship, explicit dynamic relationship etc etc The MIND recruits ‘local’ Brain behaviours
of using sounds as expressions of emotion etc to map rich sets of sounds to patterns of meaning to form words etc.
There is the suggestion that we use spectral exchange as our source of communicating within the species (see page on neural prisms ) and that the above set
of distinctions form the root set of meanings used in the creation of metaphors (see template)
BRAIN : There is the requirement to translate data from one sense into a format 'understandable' by another sense. This allows for integrations of general WHAT/WHERE distinctions into a 'whole' that serves as a source for interpretation and later habit formation. The fundamental method is in the conversion of all sensory data into neural pulses, frequencies. This enables creation of superpositions where different frequency data, derived from different senses, shares the same space to create a virtual wave that is 'the sensation' as a whole. This 'whole' is reflected in the brain in the form of the feeding of different frequency data into the dendrite of a neuron and as such the encoding of the 'whole' in that single neuron in the form of a single wave amplitude - the 'virtual' wave of the summing of different frequencies. Distribution across a network of neurons allows for the clearer resolution of the 'whole' sensation and as such we see a form of holographic or phase-space mapping. Abstracting the dendrite forest to the level of Brain allows for the whole system to encode habits/intuitions in complex patterns throughout the Brain. As such this reflects the Part-for-Whole ability in the Brain (Metonymy being the ‘part’ version of Metaphor)
MIND : Use of metonymy and the creation of analogies and metaphors where one 'format' is interpreted from another 'format' to a degree where a metaphor is taken literally. Thus a brain emphasis of 'seeing X is like hearing Y' can be abstracted to a mind concept of 'discipline A is like discipline B' (analogy) or 'A is interpreted through discipline B' (metaphor where I recruit ALL of a discipline to serve as the transference of meaning). Emphasis is on the recruitment process where we use other disciplines to aid in describing something 'new'. However, once the 'new' is described to a level of taking on its own identity, so all further work is done WITHIN the discipline to create its own 'self' which includes language. The integration of 'likeminded' disciplines is now bringing-out common threads across these disciplines and it is these common threads that the template work focuses upon (template)
BRAIN : The need to acquire novel information as quickly as possible requires the direction of attention and so of focus. This process will create changes in metabolic rates (MR) as we attempt to acquire as much information as possible.
MIND : The concept of IQ is related to the ability to acquire and assimilate information. The identification of IQ has led to identifying it with reaction times. Reaction times are related to attention span and focus and so MR. One property of this change in focus is that it changes subjective time experiences and as such reflects Time/Energy relationships identified as a property of Relativity Theory in Physics. Thus a property of Brain has been recruited and used to describe ‘out there’ but with no recognition that the ‘relativistic’ properties supposedly only expressible at ‘relativistic’ levels are in fact expressed at near-classical levels. Examples are in flashbulb and state-specific memories, particularly in the former where time can seem to ‘stop’ as the high energy processing distorts the time experience. It is NOT common for individuals to be travelling at, or near, the speed of light in these flashbulb situations, the speed at which, so Relativity states, is required for time distortions.
However, note the connection here of: metabolic rates (speed), experience of time, and the root context of our self-reference we use to describe - namely LIGHT.
BRAIN : Need for the determination of dependencies in relationships, a sense of potentials of meaning where all sensation is [potentially] meaningful and all sensation is [potentially] linked together. This relational analysis is required to focus on the space 'in-between' objects/events/sensations as well as to focus WITHIN an object/event/sensation where the latter gives us internal details. the adaptation is for survival purposes, to 'miss' nothing or else become extinct!
The emphasis on WITHIN favours retention of identity, a sense of purity. The emphasis on BETWEEN favours the use of genetic diversity etc to develop further; to introduce some 'new' blood.
MIND : Use of analytical as well as dialectical perspectives in interpretations of reality, universal,
cultural, individual (also covers Kant’s notions of analytic vs synthetic truths). Analytical logic focuses more
on the internal operations of an object where the object is whatever has been encapsulated to be 'of interest'.
Dialectical logic focuses more on the past/future states of an event/sensation/object. This approach lacks 'dot'
precision due to the presence of time as a integral part of the event/sensation. The dynamics introduces the consideration
of historical influences (this maps to the sense of 'what could have been/what could be') and so has a precision
in pattern matching.
The price of the 'dot' precision of the analytical is that it can lead to delusions due to the suspension of certain
properties of 'the moment' - namely the freezing of Time such that Time's begin-end emphasis is converted to a
general sense of the 'eternal' and from that can emerge a sense of autonomy, self-similar and reproduction interpreted
as 'pure', by androgyne/asexual methods. As such disciplines are 'objects' and they will develop through taking
already existing categorisations WITHIN the discipline to aid in further categorisations (self-reference) rather
than to step outside of the discipline and 'mix' (and so become 'impure', 'corrupt'). It is this sense of staying
'in the box' that allows for high degrees of 'dot' precision BUT also allows for delusions in perception - as is
often the case with fundamentalist perspectives.
The price of the 'field' precision of the dialectical is that it lacks 'dot' precision and, due to its dynamics
emphasis, emphasis on change, can lead to the creation of illusions (see next section) These illusions can serve
to 'link' individuals into a collective and as such maintain social integrity. This said, the dialectical perspective
is closer to 'as is' reality than the analytical but the analytical due to its precision CAN lead to transcendence
as well as transformations.
BRAIN : A fundamental concept is that of identification. This is split into the distinctions of identification
and RE--identification. The former seeks explicit, clear identification of X for an extended period of time ('eternity',
CHANGELESS). The latter focuses on the implicit and in particular the use of emotions etc to bluff in social interactions
be it preservation of the self or of the species. This use of bluff manifests the use of illusion and of CHANGE
and so the reduction of identification, of being 'naked before one's god'. The bluff nature is in (a) the exaggeration
of one from the context (to puff up) and (b) the disappearance of one back into the context (to puff down!). All
of these actions can be identified (!) in mindless gene-linked processes.
MIND : A fundamental 'drive' is to interpret reality, the creation of ontologies, of Theories of Everything.
This process of interpretation means the recruitment of current or past perspectives to assert 'is-ness' but in
doing so reflects the nature to RE-interpret past interpretations using 'new' words, notions, and overall a use
of rhetoric etc. These 'new' words only replace the facades of old words. Science attempts to reduce all of this
diversity in expressions to being 'merely' the expressions of a set of algorithms/formulas unique to the species/universe.
BRAIN/SPECIES : A fundamental behaviour in many lifeforms is the marking of territory. The method used
seems to be via the use of waypoint and vector mappings that reflect a geometric perspective, the formation of
a ‘sense’ of ‘mine’ based on linking local landmarks into an implication of ‘ownership’. The waypoint system is
very local, as in ‘tree at the top of the hill to edge of river...’, but lacks ‘dot’ precision when compared to
what is possible with vector mappings where the precision is more formalised with a sensitivity to universal landmarks
- the Sun, Moon, Stars, Earth’s magnetic field and so compass positions etc.
Thus waypoint mapping forms a line that has breadth where the breadth is as wide as the landmarks on either side
of the path, whereas in vectoring the line’s breadth is shrunk down to an almost breadthless line.
MIND : The abstraction of the sense of territory is expressed in the emphasis on the concept of TRUTH (as
well as the concept of SYNTAX used in language). A Truth is a feeling of ‘fact’ that stems from territorial mapping
- all assertions of truth reflect assertions of ownership; of territory. As such there are three levels - individual,
cultural, species, where the latter is extendable to ‘universal’ in that all universals are explicitly knowable
only within the sensory limits of the species.
Also present are the differences in waypointing vs vectoring in that some truths are implied by a constellation
made-up of events (waypointing) whereas others are explicit, very clear and free of implicitness (but not of possible
implications).
SENSES-BRAIN-MIND
The integration of these 'levels' of information shows the Mind as being dependent on Brain that is in turn dependent
on Sensory systems, in particular Vision and Audition.
The nature of the neuron upto the neocortex of the brain reflects adaptations to sensory processes of information
gathering, integrating, and communicating. The brain reflects the dynamics of information processing that we see
in the senses and in particular the human eye and ear where for the eye the parafovea that processes generalities
(edge detections etc) is complemented by the fovea that processes details ('dot' precision). We can directly recruit
and abstract these local characteristics to identify the behaviours of the neocortex of the brain where, in most
cases, the left hemisphere is more 'fovea' and the right hemisphere more 'parafovea'. (However we note that when
we zoom-in to the different hemispheres we find the SAME patterns at the different scales - thus the temporal lobe
when related to the parietal lobe, in either hemisphere, reflects the fovea-to-parafovea relationship we see at
the 'top' scale of hemispheres. All of this reflects the recruitment of the humble neuron as the all purpose communication
system)
The brain-as-eye dynamics includes the influence of focus, of attention-attraction, where the contraction/dilation
of pupil is reflected in the oscillations in the brain between 'dot' perspectives/precision and 'field' perspectives/precision.
The abstractions in Mind reflect such dichotomies as:
Concrete -
fovea : parafovea
Abstract -
dot : field
known : unknown
analytic : dialectic/synthetic
the one : the many
manic : phobic
intense : diffuse
eternal time : begin-end time (stems from edge detection)
mechanics : thermodynamics
objects : relationships
transcend : transform
axon/soma : dendrites
Overall the left column reflects particularisations applied to the corresponding element in the right column. Dynamics
means that what is particularised can be re-inserted into the field and so a refinement process is also occurring
- formation of habits/intuitions etc.
As such we see (!) that the characteristics of the left hemisphere in general reflects the zooming-in onto the
characteristics of the right hemisphere where this zooming-in reflects more 'precise' determinations. This said,
the whole operation of the brain allows for differences in perspectives where a degree of dot/field relationships
is deemed 'preferred' such that individuals/collectives can establish unique perspectives that combine the benefits
of dot/field integration. For example, high precision requirements, a more 'dot' perspective, means the acquisition
of as much data as possible and so a dot/field (aka text/context) relationship of local/universal, this also reflects
a more algebraic method in symbolisation.
low precision requirements use a more 'field' perspective where precise meaning stems from analysis of patterns,
constellations, that have a configuration that 'implies' something. Thus dot and field are more 'local' (e.g. different
prediction systems - Astrology, Tarot etc are rich in 'colour', are rich metaphors that depend on geometric symbolisms
rather than algebraic, this Astrology has a chart, Tarot a card spread, Runes a pattern of stones etc.)
Refined precision is possible without stepping out of the box where already-derived categorisations are recruited
as a whole and applied to EACH category to 'extend' qualitative descriptions. This reflects a development of precision
'laterally' and so avoids the recruitment of 'better' systems of representation - e.g. Astrology avoids calling-in
Mathematics etc to refine the discipline (although many have done this).
SENSES/BRAIN/MIND:
As I have emphasised above our Brain has a set of properties and methods strongly sourced in vision. However
within the realm of vision has emerged the realm of audition.
In humans at least, the realm of audition is more precise than that of vision and the process we see in our species
of converting geometry to arithmetic reflects the instinctive recognition of this where the more precise part of
our brain’s neurocognitive processing, the left hemisphere of the brain, is also the source of precise expression
in the form of the spoken word; the vision emphasis is limited to ‘indicating’ - pointing to something in the context
- when compared to audition that includes the ability to role-up the context and take it with you (as in
mathematical expressions or story-telling). This encapsulation process reflects the degree of precision possible
(as well as potential delusions ;-))
In the general discussion of the processing of paradox I identified the oscillations that occur as the brain tries
to interpret the paradox of A and ~A sharing the same space; this being possible in ‘complex line drawings’ that
we identify as the Necker Cube etc. I then made the point that the Mind recruits this same process when dealing
with paradoxes created by such events as I saying X and you saying NOT X. We are driven to argue due to the event
stirring-up our instinctive Brain-sourced ‘paradox-solver’ oscillations - except here the oscillations are between
Minds!
In the audition system we find the same processes in dealing with complex sounds, sort of. In dealing with complex
sounds we do not find explicit ‘uncontrolled’ oscillations but more so LEAPS between consonants:
"Most of the information in speech is carried in an acoustic entity called "formant transitions" which are formed principally during the pronunciation of vowels. If this information is presented to the left hemisphere, a consonant is heard. If it is presented to the right, a chirping tone is heard (which is what would be predicted strictly on the basis of the frequency contents). Moreover, if the frequency spectrum is continuously varied, the right hemisphere hears a changing complex tone[all aspects of the one -- dependencies bias], whereas the left hears a constant consonant up to a point at which it abruptly shifts to another consonant [analogous to integer 'jumps' - independent objects]. Without going to far into the complex area of verbal acoustic spectra, it seems clear that the left hemisphere may be treating the auditory stimulus in a manner designed to provide special processing for the information-carrying aspects of speech" (Kent 1981, p218) [my emphasis]
This is what we find in the BRAIN and in the process of self-reference, where MIND abstracts Brain so we see here
the possible source of the description of what we identify as ‘quantum leaps’ (and with it our ‘acceptence’ of
such concepts, intuitively we can ‘relate’ to such concepts since we unconsciously experience them in audition).
Our Mind’s push for precision will inevitably cross-over/entangle from a vision perspective to an audition perspective
such that the properties and methods of the Brain’s processing of audition become the root reference for such precise
metaphors as that of Quantum Mechanics (QM).
Incorporated in this ‘precise’ perspective is the conversion of ‘complex’ states to leaps across simpler states.
The leaps can be interpreted as ‘oscillations’ if we vary the frequencies.
What is suggested here is that the Mind-from-Brain-from-Sense path for Relativity has been dominated by VISION
whereas the Mind-from-Brain-from-Sense path of Quantum Mechanics has been dominated by AUDITION.
The success of QM has been due to its ‘dot’ precision but the problems of compatability of QM with Relativity are
reflected more so in the differences in abstractions from vision compared to abstractions from audition (and a
hybrid neurology will recruit properties and methods from BOTH systems, and this will be reflected in expressions
sourced in Mind.).
The fundamental point is that Mind abstracts Brain (or manifests Brain in a different gear). In doing so, since
we identify Mind as an example of transcendence, Mind will be focused on more abstract notions of interpreting
reality and will utilise Brain states as tools for categorising ‘reality’; in other words all interpretations MUST
fall within the set of possible categories we have as a species; and this include such notions as ‘leaps’.
Complex states that are ‘outside’ of the realm of the senses are instinctively ‘best fitted’ to an oscillation/leap
between ‘known’ concepts as we try to identify A OR NOT A but fail due to the hidden links between the elements
of the components of the complex state, links that we attempt to map but there is no guarantee we have got it all.
(10) From the perspective of collectives with biases to transcend/transform, consider that:
One of the consequences of collective formation is that the collective takes-on an analytical emphasis, self-contained
it enforces self-reference and with that comes a sense of 'purity'. The purity emphasis takes us into the realm
of transcendence where to get out of the box without 'mixing' with external sources requires mutation aka
transcendence.
All of this is reflected in fundamentalism, either secular or religious. For example, Darwinism favours an 'analytical'
perspective to evolution with its emphasis on mutations within a species as the only source of change. This notion
is a property of the analytical perspective and as such that perspective ensures such concepts as transcendence
will dominate thinking more so than the concept of transformation.
The behaviour of willingly surrendering identity for the sake of group identity reflects the 'purity' emphasis.
We see this in other collective behaviours in other species such that the behaviour is not local to us, just abstracted
in Mind, another example of from Brain to Mind.
Where specifically do we see this in the neurology? In the formation of 'super' neurons where a group of neurons
will synchronise and function as if one. This genetic behaviour will become part of the Brain's recruitment process
of collecting brain states as source of analogy/metaphor to deal with mapping reality; this is abstracted further
and expressed at the Mind level.
(Recall I have identified Transcendence experiences with timing issues - 'unusual' synchronisations. Transformation
is more attuned to habit encoding in the dendrites).
The recruitment of this local 'Brain' state as a source of analogy-making at the level of Mind is found in Quantum
Mechanics where we find the concept of Quantum Coherence where individual particles give-up their identity to a
unifying wave-function - see Bose-Einstein Condensate concept.
Since QM is a 'precise' discipline so it will reflect a more analytical 'nature', the full set of properties and
methods of the analytical perspective are utilised in describing events at the Quantum level AS IF these properties
and methods ARE expressions of that level rather than being analogies/metaphors for describing that level.
My point elsewhere has been that we are witnessing at the 'classical' levels behaviours we associate more with
macro (Relativity) and micro (QM) levels and as such we are starting to 'see' how our sensory system perceptions
are recruited to describe reality; how Brain properties and methods, through the concept of self-reference, are
used to give us 'precise' maps of reality developed by the more abstract, universal-focused, Mind that is usually
unaware of these Brain level concepts being abstracted - to the Mind it is all 'original' thinking! ;-) [Our technology
CANNOT transcend us since we would not understand it! Our technology just extends our senses and so we will still
'see' in these extentions the same set of properties and methods as we experience, IOW instruments rooted in analytical
perspectives will 'indicate' properties of the perspective - all meaning stems from the METHOD used to derive it
;-)].
There are also such QM concepts as entanglement, superposition, State reduction (wave collapse) that can stem from
an analytical perspective in that the 'all is [potentially] linked together' concept that is ENCAPSULATED in the
formation of the collective and as such reflects fundamentalism will involve reference to entanglement, superposition,
state reduction etc etc.
In turn these maps in the form of personal maps are then 'sold' to others to form collectives etc.
In summary, as an individual/collective becomes increasingly self-referencing, as in increasingly dependent
on defining everything with regard to themselves so the precision in this process also leads to a mental state
that is strongly biased to the concept of transcendence.
IOW the self-reference emphasises purity which is a concept strongly valued in archetypal thinking.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that it can become sterile and decadent. To get out of the box requires
you to mix, but that is a no-no since the focus is on transcendence.
The only other way to get out of the box is to transcend aka mutate. Abstract these distintions to Mind and you
have belief systems that are fundamentalist and favour a sense of the magical, the miraculous. As such the whole
collective can develop this mindset and there is a lot of energy used to maintain the collective as well as the
'dream' of transcending (and that includes winning 'BIG', becoming a 'Star' etc. These attract interests in 'magic'
etc)
The more 'mixing' perspective is that of transformation where the aim is to conserve energy through the re-configuration
of habits etc - to be sensitive to context other than one's own.
Overall transcendence = analytical perspective, transformation = dialectical perspective. Note that the analytical
is more 'child minded' when compared to the dialectical that is more 'parents minded'.
Since whole cultures can develop these biases so child/parent work within the context set by the culture.
The transcendence emphasis shows a hierarchic perspective but also room for 'differences that make differences'.
-----------------
I hope the above has aided in bringing-out the brain-mind dependencies and shows the mind as having its roots in
brain rather than being perceived as something external. The transcendence emphasis does allow for further 'development'
in the brain/mind complex but this is also so in collectives where an individual's transcendence can transform
the collective.