Replies

• 1

  chris lofting

  15 July 2009 | 12:42

  [ Permalink ]

  Variations on a theme – specialist representations of general form of
  differentiate / integrate (core brain dynamics oscillate across this dichotomy and in doing such reflect recursion at work with classes of meanings derivable from the recursion and labels then differentiating repeated patterns in different contexts)

  ==/==

  point / field (differentiating gets to the point, integrating lacks that level of precision in that it cannot reduce past a PAIR of points else it loses its definition)

  dot / pattern

  object / relationship(s)

  precise / approximate

  fovea (details) / para-fovea (shape detection, edge detection, pattern matching) – brings out the strong adaptation of the brain to vision but still maintains a grounding in neuron form for information management)

  light(precision, crisp, clear) / dark(approximation, vague, peripheral vision)

  light / dark (archetypal relationship – competitive)

  male-female / androgyny

  male / female (typal relationship – cooperative – also covers ‘cooperative’ darkness as a place of nourishment/development etc)

  FM / AM

  short range / long range

  pulse / wave

  High sample rates / low sample rates (Covers the brain as a high/low band filtering system)

  quantitative / qualitative

  literal (concentrated metaphor, tight mask. local) / figurative (analogy/metaphor – loose mask, general)

  difference / sameness

  particular / general

  concentrated / diffuse

  induction <- abduction → deduction (abduction is like induction with memory – the existence of various hypotheses on reality is made and pattern matching occurs as a immediate fit, or try to fit, a local with the general. Thus abduction is a mediating position. Note that the path of induction is from particular to general but covers recursion as a sequence; OTOH deduction is from general to particular and the recursion covers the fragmentation of some whole into its components. The ‘sameness’ bias in our hypotheses about reality are grounded in our first hypothesis that is made-up of our instincts. Exposure to context then refines such and add habits to aid in grounding the general in the particular. Thus deduction has a grounding in symmetry, induction in anti-symmetry and abduction in the mediation dynamics of particular/general where the existence of memory is recognised and used (in induction there is no such assumption of an existing hypothesis, it is all ‘first principles’ – there is also a focus on transcending vs transforming where transform fits into a context through habit creation that conforms with an existing hypothesis – on the other hand transcending serves as a form of ‘escape’ form current conditions to ‘better’ ones.)

  anti-symmetric < asymmetric > symmetric (aka parts / mediation / whole)

  asymmetric / {anti-symmetric/symmetric)

  instance / class

  point-certainty (instance of class or unique form) / uncertainty / field-certainty (law, class) (uncertainty is a mediation position and allows for the development of languages to communicate point/field dynamics

  subjective / objective

  bottom-up (all possible degrees of freedom available) / top-down (regulation of degrees of freedom to bring out patterns)

  Single context (universal text, ONE meaning, often literal minded)) / multiple contexts (relatives, many meanings, rich metaphors))

  partial / holistic

  mechanistic / organic

  non-nested hierarchy (pyramid/tree) – syntax bias / nested hierarchy (web/network) – semantics bias, small worlds emergent) – pragmatics takes the mediation position covering language development etc.

  yang / yin (generic form of representation and so can cover three forms of ‘dichotomy’, of opposites (anti-symmetry), sameness (symmetry), mediation (asymmetry and so spectrum formation; parts lists etc)

  Actual / Probable / Possible – actual covers an instance of a class (or the first element of a new class), possible covers the set of elements in some class, and the set of all classes, probable is a mediation position.

  OPEN system bias (local context) / CLOSED system (the open system bias is more so the mediation of life form with local context and so ties anti-symmetry and asymmetry together in a dynamics of local interactions, symmetry breaking/making)

  exclusion / superposition

  The dynamics of symmetry introduce us to a focus on sameness and the equivalence operator of logic.

  The dynamics of anti-symmetry introduce us to a focus on difference-within-sameness and the exclusive-or operator of logic (where NOT XOR = EQV; NOT EQV = XOR, and so NOT is more fundamental)

  The dynamics of asymmetry introduce is to a focus on (a) pure difference (randomness, uniqueness) and (b) communication of issues in stimulus/response and so an emphasis on mediation. (This maps us to induction/deduction with abduction manifesting induction + memory)

  XOR (exclusive or, (NOT EQV))/ EQV (equivalence, (NOT XOR)) (from the mediation position of XOR/EQV comes the asymmetric operator, IMP (the conditional) – without this operator all conditional are symmetric and so bi-conditional (IF and ONLY IF))

  fermionic / bosonic (The focus on fermions/bosons emphasises the XOR/EQV dynamic with the strong bias to superpositions being in the realm of bosons and as such manifesting the dynamics of magnetism in that a magnet, when cut, forms into TWO magnets, both with N/S poles. This brings out a property of wholeness/symmetry – their indivisibility. It also brings out the anti-symmetry nature where N/S are equivalent other than the direction of force. This pattern manifests fermionic tendencies where the sameness between fermions and bosons is only broken through the presence of positive/negative charges (positron/electron)).

  divisibility / indivisible (e.g. a magnetic field if ‘cut’ just fragments into two fields, same forms. It takes electron dynamics to elicit differences in the form of electrons and the tie with atomic nuclei etc)

  positive feedback / negative feedback (the discretisation of positive feedback ‘contains’ negative feedback that holds what has been discretised together – until we get to the level of a point where the definition of negative feedback disappears as negative feedback cannot reduce past a PAIR of points)

  push-away / pull-together

  replace context (single context perspective, absolute)/ coexist in current context (sharing of contexts, relativity)

  infinity / one (conversion of the dimensional/whole (one) to the dimensionless makes ‘perfection’ impossible to ‘point’ – and so all points are valid, there is no possible ‘rounding’ of perfection and so no possible ‘point’ focus – irrational numbers bring out this pattern where an obvious ‘perfect relationship’ cannot be reduced to a decimal form of description other than as an infinite sequence of values (points)) Thus it is possible to equate the infinite with the one – they are equivalent (the focus being on symmetry/wholeness etc and so the realm of sameness).

  electrical / magnetic

  (electron/positron) / boson pair (the dynamics of fermion/boson covers emergence of fermions from a pair of bosons and the re-absorbsion of such in the mutual destruction of fermion pairs into a pair of bosons (light). The superposition of photons shares space with the superposition nature of magnets and the increase of magnetism/BEC-formation with cooling; it is energy (heat) that demagnetises as it does break-up a BEC.

  sequence / magnitude (here we note a property of electrostatic forces with change but no direction – introduce FLOW and we get an immediate symmetry manifest orthogonal to the direction of electron flow in the form of a magnetic field. This relationship is manifest in the dynamics of left/right brain and down to axon/dendrite activities (and so differentiating/integrating etc)

  vector / scalar (this comes out strong in dealing with emotional assessments where reason etc develops from the ‘sequencing’ of emotional magnitudes – the serial is extracted from the parallel, the partial from the holistic, the dot from the field)

  Fermi-Dirac Statistics / Bose-Einstein Statistics (the generic position is in the form of Boltzmann-Maxwell statistics) – the association of BE statistics with symmetry brings out the SAMENESS aspect of these forms of probabilities (e.g. Head/Tail combinations of HH, HT, TH, TT form into 1/3 probabilities of HH, XX, TT where XX ignores direction, HT and TH are considered ‘same’. This lack in precision NATURALLY elicit wave patterns)

  Fight / Flight (the classes of emotion emerge from recursion of this dichotomy to give us, after three loops:

  Fight(anger,joy,acceptance,surprise) / flight(anticipation(of wrong), rejection, grief, fear) etc )

  The hierarchy present in the dynamics of differentiating/integrating bring out an oscillation pattern where what was differentiating at one level becomes integrating at the next; thus context influences categorisations with the focus on universals identification trying to reduce all contexts to a single.

  All of the above dichotomies can be interpreted from an asymmetric position (and so a triadic perspective) and recursed to give us a spectrum of POSSIBLE meanings that aid in fleshing-out finer details of the distinctions and mixing states of the elements of the original dichotomies. Heuristics then determines what is possible ‘for real’ or not.

  Chris.

• 2

  chris lofting

  15 July 2009 | 12:43

  [ Permalink ]

  The combination of the equivalence operator of logic (EQV) and statistical methods grounds us in such as Bose-Einstein statistics and a wave nature of symmetries in that the focus on ‘all is connected’ also presents us with statistics that favour even distributions (all is ‘same’) over normal distributions (all is parts, disconnected, random). The even distribution has no recognition of such concepts as sequence (ordinality), all is more biased to cardinality. Thus a statistical analysis of an XOR dichotomy (such as heads(H)/tails(T) distinction and coin tosses of such) will ignore sequence such that, given the possible combinations of HH, HT, TH, TT in a two-coin toss, the middle two are placed into the one category (XX) and given the same expressiveness as the other two to present us with a probability of 1/3 for all possible combinations of heads and tails!

  This shift from {HH, HT, TH, TT} to {HH, XX, TT} is a shift from the discrete to the ‘not so discrete’ in that any SEQUENCE focus in representations is ignored. Thus the precise distinctions of possible outcomes has been distorted, some precision reduced when we try to maintain sequencing as an important element in our analysis of reality. If we map-out the possible outcomes for six trials of Heads/Tails we end up with 64 possible results. If we then add-in the compression of HT and TH to XX we find that our 64 reduce to 27 and a definite wave interference pattern emerges. These patterns apply to any scale where compression takes place due to ignoring of sequence; and this includes experiments designed with these patterns present (e.g. double slit experiments associated with wave/particle ‘duality’ and associated with EPR experiment designs (ANYTHING focused on conservation laws automatically imposes a closed system, symmetry-focused, interpretation and THAT will automatically introduce ‘wave-ness’ as a feature – as covered in the following paragraph where for Head/Tails you can put left-slit/right-slit etc etc)

  This introduction of compression is an imposition of sameness and so symmetry over a potentially asymmetric form (HT vs TH) – thus the original set of trials of heads or tails presents us with no restrictions on degrees of freedom, all are possible and that includes the ordering of distinctions. This is a bottom-up focus. On the other hand the compression of HT and TH brings out a property of top-down thinking in the form of imposing a regulation on the degrees of freedom; the declaration of some ‘law’ that says “HT and TH are considered equivalent, we will ignore sequence” – the natural result of such being patterns that take-on the expression of wave interference patterns and the indication AS IF ‘particles’ are ‘waves’ when it is more the aggregation of particles can elicit the expression of waves (the loss in resolution power of HT from TH forces a loss in precision when we compare the ‘point’ precision of {HH,HT,TH, TT} vs the more field precision of {HH, XX, TT}).

  The imposition of top-down dynamics is an imposition of limiting degrees of freedom to derive a pattern that fits certain observations or elicits a pattern of behaviour that ‘best fits’ the stimulus of the moment – as such we see the dynamics of habits etc now working in real time in the form of consciousness suppressing instinctive data to refine some response to some specific situation. Thus our top-down nature is grounded in symmetry formation and so the seeking of ‘perfection’, the ‘perfect response’ to a stimulus where such, operating in a local, random-sensitive, context, demands ‘just-in-time’ responses to stimuli, by that I mean refinement of an instinct/habit (where such are always ‘generals’ and are more classes of responses) to fit an instance. Energy conservation favours the use of instincts/habits over conscious intervention based on assessment of local context. Thus consciousness serves us to (a) refine our habits and (b) be highly sensitive to differences over samenesses. Energy conservation can ‘fight’ these dynamics if they are too extreme.

  The methodology of top-down/bottom-up introduces an asymmetric dichotomy in the form of a mediation emphasis and so a trichotomy with consciousness through language development refining the responses to stimuli. This refinement is a play of positive feedback/negative feedback and so another example of mediation dynamics at work.

  What we notice in the IDM analysis of meaning derivation is the association of top-down dynamics with magnetism in that we see the same patterns across all scales, a property of magnetism in that cutting a magnet gives me two magnets with the same properties as the original – and so the presence of sameness despite any hierarchical differences. However, we also notice that the symmetric focus also comes with an anti-symmetric element, a focus on partness, the virtual discretisation and amplification of parts AS IF wholes (this can also elicit paradox as it can ‘transcendence’)

  What is also noticed is an oscillation in any hierarchies present where what was once top-down at level n is now bottom-up at level n-1 and visa versa. Thus as instincts have evolved so habits have evolved so reason has evolved so consciousness has evolved. The formation of instincts covers extraction of sameness for differences but through mutations etc spanning generations; the instincts developed from bottom-up dynamics to ‘rule’ behaviours top-down but in doing so lacked precision WITHIN a generation. The development of habits allows for emerging top-down but now regulating instincts (or more so refining them). Finer distinctions emerge when we move into sequencing and the realm of reason. But reason becomes bottom-up and allows for us to reason ourselves into a hole. Resolution of such has been the emergence of consciousness (where such can CHOOSE to be irrational and possibly escape some false reasoning – in other words, as degrees of freedom can be limited so the limitations can be intentionally removed (suppressed) through use of consciousness – as such our consciousness can limit freedom but also return it and all in real-time, not over generations).

  Chris.

• 3

  chris lofting

  17 July 2009 | 07:38

  [ Permalink ]

  In the making of the distinctions of anti-symmetry, asymmetry, and symmetry the dominating pair is of anti-symmetry/symmetry where such encompasses a whole but makes the distinctions of whole (symmetry) from aspects (anti-symmetry). we can identify this dynamic operating in our brains as we process difference/sameness.

  The focus here is topological in that the whole cannot be cut, only distorted and as such our attention system brings out the ability to play with the foreground/background dichotomy that serves to appear to discretise and amplify ‘something’ and so introduce the notion of foreground from background (as it does demonstrate positive feedback at work).

  The basic dynamics of the neurology cover the management of difference/sameness through the creation of instincts/habits (general sameness) to enable more energy-conserving dynamics when interacting with the environment. Thus the more organic, holistic, non-local context, nature of sameness and symmetry is served by the fast, mechanistic, partial, local context, nature of differences WITHIN sameness and so the anti-symmetric.

  The development of sophisticated mediation skills introduces a more formal focus on DOUBT and so a context of uncertainty as compared to the certainty associated with an instinct/habit (or just a single memory).

  In the analysis of the properties of anti-symmetry/symmetry we find expression in the form of two classes of logic operators, the XOR (exclusive or) and the EQV (equivalence) operators. In this analysis we then note a more generic operator at work here in the form of NOT – where NOT-XOR = EQV and NOT-EQV = XOR. The presence of the NOT operator as central to differentiating both anti-symmetry and symmetry grounds mediation in negation and so in doubt/uncertainty.

  AS such, consciousness-as-mediation is an emergent property of information processing that has its foundations in negation – a concept well covered in such works as Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” with the “Nothingness” covering the emergence of consciousness in mediating being-for-itself out of being-in-itself and the ‘gap’ that can appear between life form and environment where instincts/habits/memories fail and mediation is required.

  From the perspective of the species, all certainty is in instincts/habits/memories and as such is UNCONSCIOUS and energy-conserving in that it is CONTEXT that elicits an instinct/habit/memory and so pushes the individual. Only when doubt is introduced do we get into the ground of uncertainty and the genesis of consciousness-as-mediation through languages to communicate such (and so bring out the fact of when moving into meta-language considerations we find all languages as uncertain, grounded in a context of doubt as a property of methodology, not necessarily of reality ‘as is’)

  Sartre extends these basics into a focus on the association of negation and freedom – consciousness allows us to refuse determinism or to re-configure it, or introduce additional determinisms – and the communication of such elicits rich use of languages to ‘make the point’. At the neurological level we can see such at work in the form of the DELAY areas that allow for an instinct/habit to be broken through a play on the immediacy of stimulus/response.

  The association with negation brings out a close tie of the asymmetric realm of consciousness (and the asymmetry of the IMP (implies) logic operator) with the anti-symmetry realm of our unconscious (XOR bias) and this introduces the ability for consciousness to make or break symmetry and so transcend our more ‘basic’ nature as a species of primate. (we also note that the part/whole dynamic of anti-symmetry/symmetry introduces negation in the form of reciprocal relationships, n/1 vs 1/n, where such is a property of a topological dynamic – a closed system and so only rotations/reflections/repetitions are ‘allowed’. In this realm even the concept of the conditional (IF..THEN..) is symmetrised in the form of the bi-conditional (IF and only IF))

  The introduction of negation allows for implicit identifications, we can identify through what something IS NOT as compared to what something IS – we can ‘beat around the bush’ to draw out meaning that is incapable of direct ‘view’ – this manifesting a property of the human eye’s parafovea where peripheral vision can detect patterns not observed through the details focus of the eye’s fovea.

  At the basic level of experiencing negation, in asking permission for something the single context focus of seeking a ‘yes’ is mapped to a more ‘differentiating’ realm of our brains (often the left hemisphere), and when a ‘no’ is received there is a change in brain function to a more multi-context focus (often the right hemisphere) – implying that the negation forces the seeking through memory/imagination of contexts to introduce to perhaps change the ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ (e.g. “but last time …” – we note that if we get a ‘yes’ to our request there is no shift in the brain, no questioning of ‘why did you says ’yes’’ – we have what we want and no more need be said).

  Of note here is the association of negation with a more primitive form of communication through non-verbal emotion and the use of bluff – the foundation still in the realm of mediation but with an immediacy present as compared to the delay when we have to ‘think about it’ to find alternatives to elicit a favourable response to some previously negated request. As such we see here negation tied to the emergence of emotions as forms of mediation through amplification combined with a holding-back of a full physical expression – we can bluff through situations (and this also leads to the positive dynamics of play as it does the realm of the ‘con artist’, the seeking of something for nothing!)

  At the base level of the neurology there is little differentiation of the real from the imagined – such that imagining seeing etc can light-up vision-processing areas of the brain. As we move into mediation dynamics and the emergence of mediation so we introduce doubt that allows for recognition of the differences of the real/imagined. This recognition combines the asymmetry of consciousness with the anti-symmetry of local context parts analysis.

  Given the above, there appears to be a path covering consciousness as emergent and grounded in negation with such a property coming out of symmetry-to-anti-symmetry and the mediations across such (asymmetry). Negation is also associated with RELATIONAL space in that to have negation one first needs something to be negated. As such we see a development from the asymmetry of the universe and the focus on difference to the extraction of essentials to form instincts/habits (sameness) and the emergence of asymmetry as consciousness in mediating such dynamics.

  Chris.