(Copyright © 2001-2002 Chris Lofting).
From identification of patterns of behaviour in the Brain concerned with the
processing of sensory paradoxes (in particular visual and auditory) we can identify patterns in the Mind that reflect
the abstraction and universal application of these paradox-processing Brain behaviours. This identification, besides
indicating the emergence of Mind from Brain, shows us the always implicit nature of reality where complex patterns
can only be expressed to our senses in simplistic forms due to the nature of the Brain and its adaptation to local
conditions. In turn, these local Brain processes involved in paradox and abstracted to the level of Mind, seem
to have led to the emergence of logic and reason and serve as the foundations of our maps of reality.
Keywords : Mind, Brain, Neurology, Cognition, Paradox, Dialectical, Analytical,
Dichotomy, Logic, Species, Adaptation, Particular, General, Precision, Dot, Field, Dendrites, Transform, Transcend,
IDM.
(1) The emphasis in this article is on the realisation that dialectical and analytical logics seem to be hard-coded
into the species and that the dialectical perspective reflects the mind's way of dealing with complex mental states
that indicate apparent contradictions such that to resolve these 'contradictions' the mind recruits the brain's
way of dealing with sensory paradox. The consequence of this recruitment by the mind of a brain function is the
demonstration that all complex states are irreducible to simple descriptions reflecting EITHER/OR distinctions
and all of these complex states are described through the use of oscillations between the major distinctions that
make-up the complexity. As such, reality is always implied.
(2)There are some preliminaries to consider:
(2.1) The neuron is capable of instigating transformation in that the encoding
of instincts/habits in the dendrities of the neuron reflect the encoding of filters in the main input area of the
neuron. The synchronisation of neuron-firings allows for a collection of neurons to behave as if one neuron, and
so one large-scale filter and so an ease in the expression of a habit. These filters, emersed in a sea of hormones
(neurochemistry etc), can be changed based on seasonal changes (circadian/diurnal rhythms etc) as well as onetime
lifetime changes in the individual (e.g. puberty). The resulting transformations do not necessarily change the
core elements of the individual, they just change the facades used in interacting with the environment. In other
words the core elements, the sameness across a species, are maintained.
(2.2) The neuron, when combined with other neurons, is capable of pattern transcendence where the
processes involved in synchronisation of neural firings allow for variations in timing, either intentional or 'at
random' such that the perception and/or expression of patterns can be re-organised and so elicit 'novel' behaviours
that can elicit a change in perspectives of the individual; a sense of 'enlightenment' is achievable even though
this could be perceived as illusion/delusion when examined from the context of the collective within which the
individual operates. Thus a transformation can also lead to a transcendence.
(2.3) The ability to transcend identifies the possible source for the emergence of mind from brain. This emergence,
being a transcendence, identifies the mind as a high-level processor of information that is abstract when compared
to the more concrete, mindless, information processing of the brain. As such the brain continues with instinctive
day-to-day processing and the mind can work seemingly 'independently' dealing with abstractions or if necessary
mediate some 'out of context' brain experience.
(2.4) Mind and brain use the same methods of information processing but function at different levels. In other
words, behaviours of the mindless brain are recruited and used in the processing of abstract, more universal, data
such that behind the expressions of mind we can identify the root expression in the brain, although there may be
complex patterns of mind that cannot be explicitly identified in the brain (see below).
(3) As an example of 2.4, neurocognitively, if I present one part of the brain with a complex line drawing, that
is exactly what is perceived but it is so general as to be uninterpretable other than as a 'complex line drawing'.
When I present the same drawing to another part, a part concerned with 'dot' precision and so concerned with extracting
details from a 'field', the attempts to identify particulars can become 'confused' when the complex line drawing
is made-up of lines such that it creates a perception of TWO objects occupying the same space; for example the
Necker Cube diagram and other visual paradoxes - I here present some images showing this:
Necker Cube
Rotating clockwise or counterclockwise? Watch...
(4) Since these images 'break' the rule of the excluded middle, where A and ~A (~ = NOT) cannot exist in the same
space/time, the brain compensates by taking the static image and making it dynamic by oscillating between the two
'simple' images that make-up the complex whole and so retaining the excluded middle 'rule'. This of course creates
an 'illusion' where the oscillation is NOT representative of reality but an attempt to interpret complex reality
within the bounds set by the nature of our species. This 'approximation' of reality reflects a transition from
an analytic, dot, approach to a more dialectic, field approach (timing is used to resolve the issue and so a sense
of history - we oscillate on the A/~A distinctions).
(5) This same sort of compensation is present when I introduce a complex sound, where the 'particulars' biased
brain will interpret the sound as a sequence of consonant sounds, jumping from one to the other (the jump emphasising
the discreteness of that part of the brain doing the analysis and so still reflects the A/~A oscillations.) Given
the visual as well as auditory processing skills of the brain, we can identify a generalisation where complex patterns,
if containing more than one possible interpretation, are presented in a format of A/~A/A/~A ad infinitum.
(6) In the realm of social interactions, If I say to you 'there is no X' and you say to me 'there is X', our minds
will recruit the concrete methods of the brain to deal with these assertions. This particular set of assertions
'says' that A and ~A are being forced to occupy the same space. This is the root of paradox and as shown our brain
deals with paradoxes by utilising a method where it oscillates across A and ~A. This concrete, brain process, reflected
in such oscillations as shown in the images linked above, is abstracted to mind where we are driven to argue and/or use a dialectical process as the mind attempts to 'deal' with the problem either by eventually reducing
it to EITHER A OR ~A, [we recruit deductive logic, formal logic] or by transcending it to some 'new' expression
(reflects the dialectic process of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis); in other words argumentation is a natural property
of the species reflecting the abstraction of brain processes 'into' mind (where we argue with ourselves) and out
into the collective.
(7) Note that in the A/~A oscillations the brain will just keep mindlessly oscillating and there is no distinction
of other minds; the moment a contradiction is detected, either in here or 'out there' and that includes my mind
vs your mind, the dialectical processes are instinctively brought out to 'deal' with the problem; in other words
ANY detection of the possible negation of one's particular perspective, brain-local or mind-universal, is instinctively
fought against since the presence of the negation implies an A + ~A paradox which swings the mindless brain into
action enforcing 'oscillations'.
(9) BOTH deductive logic, aka analytical logic, and dialectical logic are apparent mind abstractions of brain processes
where in the brain there is a dimension made-up of states of precision, field (dialectic) to dot (analytic)
and so a search for details will extract something from the field and pass it to the more 'dot' precise analytical.
IOW BOTH methods of analysis can be identified as being 'hard coded' in the human brain and abstracted where the
observed oscillations of the dialectical process reflects attempts to deal with complex expressions that cannot
be broken down to a single state by the analytical 'side'. This oscillation reflects the lack of precision of the
dialectic when compared to the analytic but also the inability of the analytic to deal 'rationally' with some complex
states of reality. In the above examples, the complex line drawings reflect the analytical logic expression of
A AND B. We can derive the dialectical from through rotation, turn the A AND B on its head to give A NOT-AND B
which converted to A XOR B. This exclusive or is reflected in the oscillations we see in these 'paradoxes'. (sew
the logic page for differences of analytical and dialectical)
(10) At the mind level this oscillation introduces the perception of the irreducibility of some complex mental
states (as in the perceived irreducibility of Charles Peirce's concept of Thirdness - one of Peirce's categories
(and for that matter the perceived irreducibility of all triads)) where these states, their 'position', 'contain'
both A and ~A, for example Peirce's notion of mediation AND of representation (and so A/~A), such that attempts
to identify EITHER/OR will fail, just as with the brain's processing of the Necker Cube oscillation, where focus
on one element [e.g. mediation] will lead to the 'sudden' switching of focus to the other [representation]. (Analytic
logic requires excluded middle to be empty to ensure the discrete identification. Reality is not so 'easy')
(11) This oscillation can occur over seconds, over hours, over days etc where reflection on the position will lead
to oscillations in determining the 'true' nature of the position. For complex mental states this is inescapable
since the mind is recruiting local brain processes to deal with non-local concepts (akin to the notion of superpositions)
and the price of this is that the behaviour of the brain will influence the mind. As a result we can identify 'complex'
states by the oscillations that occur - this is extendable into all disciplines and can span centuries of discourse
as the context influences the oscillations over generations; reflections on a complex state MUST lead to oscillations
in thinking. (There is ONE 'sense' that seems capable of immediate experience of very complex states - emotions
- however even here we do recognise oscillations when dealing with some complex emotional states that have not
yet been resolved either to A or NOT A or else trancended to a 'new' experience)
(12) As a further possible example of mind recruiting and abstracting brain we can identify the exclusion principle
identified above, a property of brain sourcable to sensory systems, being expressed as a property of complex interpretations
of reality, in particular the Pauli Exclusion Principle which basically 'says' no two 'dots' (in this context -
electrons and other 'fermions') can share the same 'space'.
(13) Another possible example is in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where the attempts to drill down to 'perfect'
dot precision shows us where the analytical processes come from, the river that is reality and so the time-dependent
universe of begin-end rather than the time-suspending universe of the eternal 'now' so necessary for analytical
logic; in other words attempts to be 'precise' about reality reflect complex patterns rather than the simplistic
patterns of analytic thinking.
(14) A further example of the concrete being recruited to describe the abstract is where in the realm of mediation
the brain creates a habit/symbol of the event, all very 'concrete' stuff but when abstracted to the level of MIND
some interesting notions emerge. In particular is the notion of wave/particle duality in that, at the concrete
level, the combination of an oscillation across A/~A together with a degree of indeterminacy on perception,
will introduce distortions such that the pattern that emerges from the process reflects 'wave interference' patterns
rather than without indeterminacy where we get normal distribution curves.
(15) This brain-level process has been recruited by mind to describe 'out there'. In fact the structure of the
experiments performed 'out there' are identical to the brain processes described above, where we take A/~A and
oscillate - e.g. in quantum mechanics and the EPR paradox, left slit/right slit combined with a lack in observational
precision - we do not look directly at the slits but rather an impression device some distance away.
(16) The indeterminacy reflects the transition from a unit approach (the 'dot', the single electron, photon etc)
to a statistical approach. In a statistical approach, being statistical, the basic unit of measurement is
the PAIR and as such we cannot identify 'sequence' order within the pair, only between pairs. This
perspective is similar to the one of the complex line drawing where as we shift from a focus on a dot to a field
focus, dots, so there are perceptual changes and resulting 'distortions' if we still try to perceive from a 'dot'
perspective.
(17) It is this indeterminacy, the distortion, that allows for the emergence of wave interference patterns, IOW
the method of the brain used to mediate/represent A/~A processes has been recruited by the mind without acknowledgement
of that fact, and is presented as if a direct reflection of 'out there' rather than as an abstract representation
of how 'in here' processes A/~A distinctions combined with indeterminacy.
(18) All maps of reality, no matter how abstract and seemingly 'objective', stem from the functions of mind that
has recruited and generalised the more concrete functions of brain; and so the patterns of the brain are recruited
by the mind and re-labelled in the process of abstraction. This sharing of the same space, mind and brain entangled
'in here', will lead to perceptions that, without validation, can lead to illusions/delusions regarding reality
and our place in it.
(19) That said, the transcendence factor, a factor that even allows for multiple personalities in the one brain
(which express themselves in oscillations), can also serve as a source for mental expressions not directly locatable in the brain and these in turn can become the 'concrete' elements of mind. However, as we find with computers,
the expression of the software is still dependent on the precision of the hardware and the use of binary representations,
the A and NOT A as well as the dynamics of the 'middle'.
(20) These dependencies are identifiable in the brain where we see the workings of both analytical approaches (dot
biases, mechanistic, reversibles, time is 'eternal') as well as dialectical approaches (field biases, thermodynamic,
irreversible, time is 'begin-end'). The implications are that the dot perspective has emerged from the field perspectives
as a result of seeking precise details on sensations and in doing so has developed a world of its own where time
is reversible etc., and so thermodynamics 'ignored'.
(21) The analytical does allow us to 'refine' the field - but this 'dot' process, besides being a source of transcendence,
contains illusions/delusions and we need to identify these to enable the continued development of the species and
in particular we need to focus on dialectical processes/logics to enable further transcendences as well as transformations.
(22) What is clear is that the brain/mind studies point to the particular emerging from the general prior to the
formal assertion of the particular. The formal identification of the category of 'is-ness' manifests the thought
processes extracting a dot from a field, a very dynamic field, and as the field 'bubbles along' the dot we have
copied-out is held constant to enable formal naming, analysis etc.
(23) This act of particularisation makes us 'freeze' the dot, we remove dynamics, to aid in analysis. IOW we ignore
time factors, time becomes something 'eternal' for the period of formal identification of the dot; by ignoring
time we ignore dynamics to get a clear image of the dot.
(24) The field is dynamic, a boiling sea of potentials. The particular dot acts as a stimulus (a WHOLE but a static,
particular quality) that the brain responds to with 'mindless' action. Zoom-in for finer distinctions and we find
ourselves in the realm of the dynamics, closer and closer to the field. There we find we need to, are forced to,
shift to dialectic perspectives to deal with the oscillations that appear when we attempt to make distinctions
within a context (in 'is-ness' there is no background, just the 'being' of the quality without judgement and so
an actual as well as a potential! IOW the oscillations of the field are now in the quality and so it oscillates
across actuality-potentiality - it reflects field behaviours WITHIN)
(25) 'New'ness thus comes in two forms, as a change in facade but retention of the core (and so as an adaptation)
- this reflects transformation - or as a change in the core (and so an innovation) - this reflects transcendence.
The brain easily transforms, the mind easily transcends (and IS a transcendence from brain).
(26) The retention of core, and so transformation, reflects genetics where there is no 'new' knowledge, just context-sensitive
expressions of existing knowledge, the facade changes. On the other hand, the change of core, and so transcendence,
reflects a 'new' species, genetic mutation, intentional 'change' that becomes Bateson's 'difference that makes
a difference'. Overall, the transformations maintain core sameness, appear different. The transcendence breaks
core sameness without immediate recognition of change in appearance.
(27) The success in evolution of the mindless brain in utilising dot precision in dealing with the everyday has
led to the possibility at the mind level of developing whole disciplines founded on analytical logic where
time is reversible without consequence etc etc etc This 'playpen' is fine until you head deeper into reality and
come across the field...
(28) The particular part of the brain biased to 'dot' precision also happens to be associated with delusional behaviour
etc. (the dialectical 'side' is more prone to depression, the analytic 'side' more prone to mania, fundamentalism,
psychosis rather than neurosis - the psychosis seems to stem from timing problems). 'We' are, by implication, the
sum of both ;-)
(29) Note one very important distinction - that of identification. The more 'analytic' part of the brain is more
'dot' precise and so more focused on clear, eternal identification. This property of MIND seems to stem from this
area of the BRAIN which suspends/distorts time elements to enable it to be precise, or more so limiting time to
a sense of the 'eternal'; abstraction of this concept gives mind a sense of 'being'.
(30) The complementary distinction is that of RE-identification and this includes begin-end time considerations.
Since this realm is that of the dialectical and Peircean thirdness so the brain-based uncertainty of thirdness
is reflected in the MIND experiencing depression - a sense of loss of identity...those damn oscillations! implication
is that a developed mind, a complex mind, or more so a relational biased mind will experience depression
more! Is it just coincidence that in the typologies like the MBTI etc the dialectical perspective is more associated
with identity and security seeking?
(31) In summary, we can identify brain behaviours, forever working locally, that are reflected in mind behaviours,
expressed at a more abstract, universal, level but as such still apparently 'free' of the brain. However, closer
examination of these mind behaviours, in particular the expression of analytical and dialectical logic, seem to
indicate the stemming of these abstractions from the brain's way of dealing with sensory paradox and as such identification
of this pattern suggests mind emerges from brain.