Re: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Alex,
By understanding the METHOD used in all communications so one has access to ALL POSSIBLE meanings in that the bounds of the method determine all that is knowable. As such, once the method is identified, there is no need for access to neurology, cognitive science, psychology, or any other specialisations (thermodynamics included) to map out a generic 'meaning engine' or 'ontology creator' where what comes out of that process is a set of generics, universals, in need of customisation to 'fit' the local context.
The journey into neurosciences has been to understand the method - a method obviously developed heuristically over millions/billions of years.
Consciousness lets us zoom-in for details and so unravel all of the redundancy that exists in the neurology. In that unravelling we find that the general METHOD for information processing appears to be recursion of differentiating/integrating, basic XOR/AND dynamics where the dichotomy is asymmetric, and so XOR is PARTS and is derived from AND. (the recursion is 'passive' in that by encapsulating something (attention system) and oscillating across differentiating/integrating elements of the brain so we are in fact applying recursion to the differentiate/integrate dichotomy. That recursion will give you the set of POSSIBLE qualities, universals, with a LOCAL context favouring ONE of those qualities (or more so sorting the set into bestfit/worstfit ordering of qualities and our consciousness focusing on he 'bestfit' since it has a habit of going for the 'light' ;-))
Since the SET of qualities, derived by recursion, is FINITE for each level of recursion, so that set is the 'whole' and all elements are the parts. What we then find, as a property of recursion, is that WITHIN each element we can in fact find the expression of ALL of the other elements - as we find in each cell of our being the full set of DNA code - the human genome. This comes about by XOR-ing each of the available elements with the particular element under consideration.
What we get is a description by analogy/metaphor of the X-ness of an element. IOW if one element is associated with structure issues, initial format prior to furnishing etc, XOR-ing it with all of the others gives a description of that archetectual nature as manifest in each of the other elements.
The ASYMMETRY that comes with the differentiate/integrate dichotomy reflects the asymmetry of left/right hemispheres of the brain, as it also reflects the front-brain/back-brain nature, as it reflects the surface/core brain nature, as it reflects lobe relationships WITHIN each hemisphere, as it reflects the basics of axon/dendrite relationships (IOW the basic neuron).
Remove all reference of the neurology and you are left with patterns of differentiating/integrating with mediation/representation emerging from the 'middle' of that dichotomy when needed. This operates at all scales where all a change in scale does is 'widen' the choices in expression in the form of increased PRECISION (and so our neocortex does a lot more than axon/dendrites but reflects the SAME methodology in that doing)
A NATURAL product of the asymmetry is in the PART/WHOLE dynamic where as we focus more on parts so out pops hierarchy; a property of the METHOD. IOW as we become increasingly differentiating so we move from a level of precision that is 'approximate' and 'semantics' oriented, to an ever increasing sense of precision that is 'precise' and also reflecting the concentration of semantics into what we label 'syntax'.
ALL of this and more is happening BEFORE you start introducing formal labels/languages etc etc. Basic mapping of properties and methods of differentiating, integrating, mediating, recursion of dichotomies give us a rich realm that is THEN formalised, brought into consciousness, every time a 'new' language etc is considered.
The STRUCTURE of our brains, or more so of the NEURON, DETERMINES the basic qualities we use to derive meaning. Abstract the processes and no neurology reference is required, the indication being that ANY 'intelligent' life form, in its adaptation to the universe, will take-on the SAME method in processing information as we do. The forms of EXPRESSIONS may be different, just as our forms are, but will be translatable due to the common properties of the universe that we all share.
Any core meaning system therefore need only reflect the generic method and properties to serve as a template for all LOCAL expressions. Thus the concepts of, for example, the far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium dichotomy, will be found to reflect beneath their LOCAL context, the properties and methods of differentiating/integrating - and overall an ASYMMETRY where we can map a spectrum of states covering the dimension that comes when we recurse the dichotomy - as a our brains do.
Due to the XOR/AND dynamic, so the hierarchy means that what is XOR-oriented, a PART, at level n, and so now interpretable as an AND (whole) at level n+1 can be XOR-ed to derive more details. The DESCRIPTIONS of those details will be by analogy/metaphor using the qualities available at that level of analysis; and this can go on ad infinitum - or until resolution power drops off so we can no longer detect difference, or it gets impractical to continue.
If we treat all of the senses as SPECIALISATIONS, then removal of them will leave - patterns of differentiating/integrating. IOW we move to an abstract system, applicable to ANY specialisation and so allow for universal communications IN GENERAL. LOCAL CONTEXT will then elicit 'variations' in expression, customisations of the general to 'fit' the particular.
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au