RE: Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and the SUO

["Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@ozemail.com.au>]

Hi Joshua,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2005 5:52 PM
> To: chrislofting@OZEMAIL.COM.AU;
> standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: Re: Inconsistent models, mapping, interoperability, and the
> SUO
>
>
> > To comprehend the universal one needs to go past the level of
> linguistics
> > and on into the depths of our species that seeds linguistics -
> supplies
>
> I was first intrigued by your use of the neuron analogy to describe the
> deficits of Zoroastrian thinking, but I hope we're not straying toward
> the classic mistake of confusing an analogy with a law.
>
> Trying to use the smallest part to describe the whole is a classic
> mistake, and describing consciousness in neuronal terms (as anything
> more than an analogy) is hardly different from describing human
> reproduction using the homunculus.  Chaos theory has proven many times
> over that large-scale phenomenon in a complex systems (such as weather)
> are not usefully described or manipulated in terms of their smallest
> parts.
> Describing human consciousness this way is like describing
> weather by saying that "hot/cold causes the density of air particles to
> change and displace one another, causing wind.  Thus, winter is a mass
> which displaces summer, and summer is a mass which displaces winter."
>


I think you are missing some important points; perhaps I have not made them
too clear ;-)

(1) The CORE format for processing all sensory information is through the
neurology. The neurology deals ONLY with frequencies, wavelengths,
amplitudes and so with FM and AM processing. Thats it. As such, senses are
specialist in their operation (the eye serves as a good source of the
dichotomies we find - i.e. fovea/parafovea take in information and in doing
so 'categorise' it at the source where the parafovea is associated with
forms, with edge detection and so the 'vague', when compared to what the
parafovea surrounds - the fovea with its focus on details, colour etc. - we
'see' here the differentiating coming out of the middle of the integrating)

(2) Each neuron is linked in some way with others to form networks/nuclei
etc where, through synchronisation, these networks work as ONE - IOW as a
neuron (but virtually so). The differences are in the SCALE where that
difference allows for the input/output areas to handle bigger bandwidths -
as such, the encoding of instincts in the input areas of a neuron become
distributed through the input areas of all neurons in the network -
distribution of labour, and synchronisation, allows for dealing with high
bandwidth material - but still all FM/AM data.

(3) If we jump from the basic neuron and its FM/AM processing, with some
mediation thrown in when linked into a network etc, to the neocortex of the
human brain we find the SAME dynamics at work in the form of left
hemisphere/right hemisphere dynamics showing FM/AM processing in vision and
in recent times demonstrated in audition (refs etc in
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html)

(4) From other research sources we find the SAME patterns operating WITHIN
each hemisphere, ACROSS lobes in those hemispheres  - thus the
temporal/parietal relationships reflect the same dynamics as that of the
hemispheres - or the neuron. Zoom-in to a single lobe and the SAME patterns
emerge, e.g. 'front' temporal vs 'back' temporal. We also find the SAME
general patterns operating frontBrain/backBrain as well as surface/core.

(5) This FRACTAL-like behaviour reflects the maintaining of an extremely
useful information processing system from the level of neuron to
consciousness (the latter reflecting the DELAY element of the neuron) and
out into our maps of reality and collective behaviours. (we can trace this
information processing deeper to the level of recursion of
purines/pyramidines - required to create DNA codon material)

(7) The CORE common ground in all of this is differentiating/integrating;
expressed in neurosciences as the oscillation of WHAT/WHERE.

(8) We are not concerned with the local neuron or its networks, ATP
processes that enable it to do what it does etc etc all the way 'up' to the
brain etc - we ARE concerned with the common METHOD we detect -
differentiating/integrating plus a focusing of attention, and so 'passive'
recursion of differentiate/integrate in a 'confined' space.

(9) I cannot get a butterfly to flap its wings and in so doing detect a
typhoon develop off Japan. But I CAN, using various scanning methods, 'see'
FM/AM dynamics at work in the brain - IOW the FM/AM dynamics of neurons
filters up to networks, to lobes, to hemispheres to 'mind'. (or I can use
drugs to bring out the differentiating/integrating dynamics in behavior -
cocaine to bring out the differentiating from without and integration from
within, and LSD/Ecstacy etc to bring out the integrating with without)

(10) Since the dynamics of neurotransmitter/neuromodulator uptake issues at
the level of neurons can elicit consciousness expressions covering mania to
depression, so we see the basic dichotomy of the neuron,
differentiating/integrating, causing 'issues' at the level of consciousness.
Those issues then AFFECT thinking in general such that the thoughts of a
depressive will 'colour' their philosophy of life - and the encoding of that
philosophy in books, videos etc etc etc.

(11) The nature of the species is to acquire instincts/habits that allow it
to 'fit in' to a context quickly, efficiently. Genetics shows this dynamic
spanning generations, until we came along with our skills to go PAST the
moment, acquire the spectrum, the parts-list, of some sensation, analyse
those parts, re-structure them, and re-integrate them back into reality.
IOW instincts/habits modifications are done within the life time of each
individual of the species.

(12) With the differentiating/integrating 'theme' so the properties of those
elements become of interest. If we focus on human emotions, derived from the
specialist fight/flight dichotomy, we find a basic focus behaviourally on
dealing with context - to replace it/take it over, or to dissapear into it.
With that behaviour comes basic acts of identity processing and
socialisation. Note that all of the basic emotions can 'slot' into this
focus on context - using it to protect as well as to exploit - and emotions
represent the beginnings of communicating internal states to others (for
more on emotions and the fight/flight dichotomy see
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html )

(13) The TEMPLATE that comes out of the IDM material is the template used
for the making of analogy/metaphors. The dynamic is of (a) applying
recursion and (b) utilising the ROWS that come with each level of recursion
as the source of basic qualities used to communicate. (see the diagram
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/btree.gif - to see the tree applied
to Sowa's lattice of top/bottom nodes, turn the diagram on its side with A
at the top, ~A at the bottom. Information resolution issues allow for links
from one row to another where the differences are in resolution power and
that will take-on a lattice format lacking qualitative distinctions in any
'sameness' - as such the recursion maps all POTENTIALS that we then overlay
actualisations). It is this template that allows us to so easily use one
specialisation to describe another.

(14) The FINITE nature of the rows means that any description of reality is
through analogy/metaphor using categories in the row to describe properties
of another category. This is possible since the WHOLE row is the WHOLE and
the categories in that whole, the parts, due to the method of derivation,
the recursion, contain all other parts - as a cell contains all of our DNA.
(The METHOD does this - recursion of purines/pyramidines gives us DNA
categories used for communications and the method works at all scales and so
will maintain its properties across all scales - use it on any dichotomy and
the same core patterns exist. Thus using bit symbolisms, combined with the
logic operators, here using XOR, so we can extract information reflecting
the integration of whole in a part in the form of links to all of the other
parts - thus given X and Y so we can derive the X-ness of Y or the Y-ness of
X etc)

(15) The 'issues' are in the FINITE nature of the rows - each row is
supposed to describe 'all there is', and there is a LOT! So to stay 'in' the
box we have to use other categories in the box, but since we cannot make
precise 1:1 mappings so the categories are used as analogy/metaphors.

I hope the above makes things a little clearer in that we are ALWAYS using
analogy/metaphor to describe what the neurology deals with -
differentiating/integrating, wavelengths/amplitudes/frequencies. As such, in
the context of the brain, we are working WITHIN the whole by making FINER
and FINER distinctions - in that process we move from the vague to the crisp
;-)

Chris