ABSTRACT

A fundamental problem in the determination of human behaviour has been our lack of understanding of the methods in which the brain processes data. An extensive analysis of neurological, psychological, and cognitive science research has led to the development of a model of brain function showing that overall functionality is very much dependent on nurture's refinements on the genetically 'complete' infant we are at birth, with the main neocortical biases being towards location and disguise which we abstract to concepts like 'facts', 'truth', 'value', and 'quality'. - Furthermore, the method in which we make maps of reality are more along the lines of externalising our own properties and methods - but there is the consideration that, due to evolution being adaptive, perhaps we have adapted by internalising the properties and methods of 'out there'.

KEY WORDS: brain, evolution, behaviour, lateralisation, identification, neurology, psychology, neo-cortex



INTRODUCTION:

[1]
An analysis of the manner in which the brain processes information has led me to the conclusion that Roger Sperry's emphasis on wholes and aspects, and my emphasis of this in my own work, is perhaps slightly over-emphasised. What caused this re-analyse was my continually running into triadic rather than dyadic models, and the 'fact' that these models could elicit a degree of 'meaning' that was almost (!) 'stand- alone'.

[2]
My analysis of these models has refined my views on structure to a degree where the resulting model seems to shed an excellent amount of light on the functioning of the brain, as well as the brain's refinement - the 'mind', and the mind's refinement - society.


HISTORY:

[3]
Sperry's preference, and the 'traditional' view since his work, has been that there is a degree of lateralisation in the hemispheres of the brain. This lateralisation is along the lines of a linear-oriented, 'parts' biased left hemisphere (LH) and a more non-linear oriented, 'wholes' biased right hemisphere (RH). Even though research over time seems to have 'mellowed' this distinction, the distinction still finds favour.

However, combining more recent work with my earlier analysis

(<http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brain.html>)

has led me to slightly different conclusions and structural concepts.


THE MODEL:

[4]
The brain of the newborn infant is a 'whole' in that it is a raw but integrated system - the pinnacle of genetic creation.

[5]
Once born, as the infant develops so nurture introduces sensory inputs that lead to degrees of sensory differentiation (synesthesia seems to be 'common' in newborns implying a lack of differentiation).

[6]
As the infant enters a time of 'conscious' awareness, so sensory differentiation is refined even further - the child no longer turns 'as a whole' to any sensory input but is more selective of which sensory system to use to process the data.

[7]
What this implies is that the 'whole' oriented infant has become aware of context and so the refining of the distinction between 'me' and 'NOT me'. (Neurologically, I recall this degree of distinction-making as being linked to the RAS).

[8]
A driving influence on the child as it develops is the process of the identification of objects, and further refinements in identification seem to be in a developing sense of *reflected* identification in that an object can be identified by its aspects; I can 'taste' lemon without having to see or feel it.

[9]
Despite these refinements, the lateralisation biases in humans still seem 'obvious', but a slight 'change' in considering the aspects discovered through neurological and psychological research suggest that rather than the hemispheres being more 'wholes and aspects' bias they are both biased to differentiating text and context of a whole. This may be a subtle distinction but it does bear fruit.


SINCE THIS IS A 'BRIEF' ARTICLE, I HERE SUMMARISE:

[10]
The left hemisphere of the brain has a text bias where it's context is only 'logic', where logic is a marker of 'correct location'. In this space, the linking of text and context is very 'tight' and so a degree of 'intenseness' and self-containment and a bias to reductionism - the removing of illusion to get at the 'exact' location (abstracted to 'truth', 'fact', etc)

[11]
It is this emphasis on location (which I suggest has a bias to auditory system roots - derived from using the ears as detectors for localisation of prey or threats, as well as senses of balance and so self-spatial location) that has been abstracted to the concept of logic and an emphasis on relations (syntax).

[12]
The LH apparent emphasis on text is an emphasis on 'me' - and so a strong concept of 'self'. To use 'old' analogies, this is like Freud's ID. As such, there is a degree of self- containment in the ID which is intense and so direct in it's approach; with identification being explicit and literal and overall emotion being neutral or positive (the latter being an aspect of LH functioning discovered 'lately' (80s)) (note also that our language is also more self- contained than those languages that ellicit RH activity; those RH languages using ideograms etc are VERY context dependent. In our systems the RH is more concerned with grammar etc - more context)

[13]
The right hemisphere of the brain has a context bias, where text is only a too abstract or small or delicate or even overpowering center, and so a reliance on aspectual data to 'shed light' on the text. Identification is therefore more implicit and based more on metaphor.

It is this emphasis on context (which I suggest has visual system roots but overall is concerned with disguise and enhancement - and so the creation of illusion) that has been abstracted to the concept of semantics - 'meaning' - and a bias to a text that has 'value'.

[14]
In both cases it is context that supplies 'meaning' but in the LH it is not as 'rich' as that possible from using the RH for analysis; even if some of this 'richness' is illusional.

[15]
Overall, the 'whole' human being is, at any one time, more an aspect of the continuum of possible states that can exist within these two extremes, with nurture playing a major part in developing a sense of balance (or a preferred extreme - depending on the situation), and as such a preferred 'persona' - a state of comfort from which to operate.

[16]
In one's life one can experience many different states on the continuum, and each state will vary in refinement due to its lack of use or its extensive use.


[17]
To continue the Freudian analogies:

ID - LH bias, text (self) oriented. literal, intense, syntax bias, location bias. direct identification. Develops to being Reductionist (remove illusion).

EGO - The middle. The maintaining of the distinction between text and context. analogy bias used for identification. Emphasis on maintaining balance (position). Categorise (map illusions and 'reals')

SUPEREGO - RH bias. context (others) oriented. metaphoric, diffuse, semantics bias. reflected identification. Develops to being Illusionist (create illusion).


[18]
In the latter case it is suggested that the strong emphasis on aspects can actually create a 'new' ID-like identity (or 'virtual' identity - this leads into consideration of levels of refinement etc where gross 'ID'-like behavour can be refined to a degree of social success in the form of the more 'intense' 'me' oriented individuals where text 'drowns' context and all is 'one'. e.g. movie stars, 'dynamic' leaders, supreme athletes etc all whom need to operate in their own contexts. See 'process of identification' section below).

[19]
In this respect, ID and SUPEREGO are very similar in that of 'whole' identification - it is just a bias of direct or reflected (like SUN or MOON), but at the same time these terms are 'gross' and serve only as markers for increasing degrees of complexity where the attributes of left and right become mixed.

[20]
EGO on the other hand attempts to maintain the distinctions since this is the most 'balanced' position. (It is also the position of highest possible diversity when we see ID and SUPEREGO as extremes - it is the area of choice). This maintaining of distinctions includes the recording of the distinctions ('maps') and so we find that our maps are often based on dichotomous distinctions and the use of analogy. As we get more refined so our maps become more like metaphor and can in fact REPLACE the object in that they take-on a life of their own. This can lead to illusion - the RH bias.


SOME RE-INTERPRETATIONS:

With this 'simple' model in mind (!), here are a couple of traditional mappings that need rewriting:

[21]
'THE RH IS CONCERNED WITH HOLISTIC ANALYSIS.'

Sort of...it is more concerned with aspectual analysis, and so context, and determining 'what could be' since the LH has perhaps failed in determining 'what it is' or finds 'it' is contextually 'indeterminate' as far as logic is concerned. It is more refined in processing implicit communications - body language, emotive tones etc., aspects of communication that when summed can lead to an explicit identification (or STRONG approximation) of a whole.

[22]
The RH is therefore the 'seat' of rich intuition and metaphor. Since the brain seems to uses emotion to store contextual data, it is more rich in emotional expression as well as refined emotional detection - it is 'better' at face detection more since it 'sees' the emotion (context) on the face rather than 'the whole'; the LH can detect the 'text' but its context marker is syntactic and so 'weak' when compared to emotional expression.

(there is also LH-biased 'logical' intuition which is more an implicit awareness of 'correctness' than anything else. Thus intuition is a function of BOTH contexts).


[23]
'THE RH PROCESSES 'WHOLE' SOUNDS'

Sort of...it is more concerned with implicit identification. Sounds that the LH does NOT identify as parts of linear communications are processed in the RH in that it tries for contextual mapping - e.g. 'what could it be?' Same thing with harmony in that it is harmony that supplies the CONTEXT for the melody. People who start to read music dont 'experience' the music and so a more LH degree of activity in their actions - the 'feel' is more in the 'correct' sequence of notes. As they develop so they can 'see' the context of the notes and express more 'feel' but they still have to play the tune through a couple of times to get that 'feel'; so they start with text and location and develop contextually from there. On the other hand, those NOT trained in music will use more aspectual (RH) methods when listening and more approximations when trying to play. 'Good' musicians are a refined mixture of both in that they can, for example, start on the third bar, second note of section X and sound 'complete' - there is no hesitation or 'feeling-around' for the notes and the overall expression - they can capture the correct location (text) and 'feel' (context) and their static and dynamic relationships as one (a whole).



SUGGESTIONS & SPECULATIONS:

[24]
This distinction of text/context leads directly to the derivation of concepts like Calculus where the consideration of text/context is found in the degrees of derivation:

location (text)
velocity (text / context distinction) - 1st derivative
acceleration (context - relativity etc.) - 2nd derivative

This is qualitatively hierarchic and we continue to find hierarchy in brain structure which 'suggests' a gross model for data processing, namely a process from textual identification to contextual identification, with the latter 'leading' to a 'step' up (or down) in hierarchy and so another level of refinement. (Thus the 'next' level in Calculus starts with the concept of action).


[25]
In the light of this model, it is interesting to consider the American philosopher Charles Peirce's concept of firstness, secondness, and thirdness in the making of symbols. He starts with the concept of firstness as being monadic and an ICON. We would link this to LH activity of 'text' plus 'location'. The next step is the analysis of this icon through dyadic processes - dichotomies. This is 'secondness' and any identification is in INDICES where we make the distinctions of text/context in that we 'tease' one 'out' of the other, so creating an indices to possible aspects.

[26]
The 'final' step is that of thirdness and the creation of a SYMBOL. Note that in the text/context model, the thirdness is strongly contextual in that it is more SYMBOLIC of the text than the text itself.

[27]
I suggest that this process does not stop here since we are dealing with hierarchy and so a degree of feedback in that the output of one level becomes the input of another - this is recursion, but also note that the attributes given to the RH introduce the concept of emergence and so modern concepts like complexity theory etc where contextual 'summing' can lead to a 'textual' emergence. (as far as Peirce is concerned I also feel that there are qualitative distinctions of the levels and so a more hierarchic processing where secondness and thirdness are more elements of a binary tree (1-2-4) so they have modes of representation where there are fundamentally four modes of metaphor to describe one 'thing'.

For identification, overall we go: literal --> analogy --> metaphor as the process of 'full' identification, with analogy having two divisions and metaphor four. As we go to higher levels of analysis so an emerging binary tree.


THE PROCESSES OF IDENTIFICATION:

[28]
OBSERVATION:

The above has asserted two basic modes of identification - direct, or emitted, and indirect, or reflected. Reflected identification is described by the concept of a tunnel. A tunnel is maintained by it's context - I remove the context and there is nothing left - the concept is an illusion. However, the maintaining of the illusion can be of 'value' in the establishment of meaning (as well as putting highways through mountains).

[29]
Emitted identification is described by the concept of a stick in that if I remove all context the stick still remains - it is a 'hard' fact. (even if, due to the removal of its LH location-biased context it is a bit 'out of place'. I suppose that 'pure' identity would have to be by 'feel' since the use of light to see it implies a degree of reflective identification. A light bulb on the other hand is perhaps a better example in that there is also a degree of intensity).

The base structure for emitted and reflected identity is the same: text and context.


THE PROCESSES OF DESCRIPTION:

[30]
In our descriptions of reality we will use terms that describe the mixing of text and context. I have defined four 'generic' terms that seem to encapsulate all of the possible descriptions:

Blend : This is like a whole in that text and context are mixed to such a degree that they appear as 'one' - direct/emitted identification. The only context is, simply, 'location' (and so concepts like 'truth')

Bond: This describes a whole where the text/context distinction is possible but not 'separated' - like the distinction of the yolk from the white of an egg.

Bound: This describes a whole by separating text from context and a following emphasis on direct contextual analysis or indirect contextual analysis. This area is in fact two-fold in that the direct mode looks at location concerns (dynamic relationships) whereas indirect mode looks at content concerns (static/structural relationships). There is an emphasis on using dichotomies of two basic types - relational where the elements are self-contained, and what Charles Peirce call 'inherital' in that the elements are like text and context - forever tied together.

Bind: This describes a whole by 'summing' (more like binding - a lattice, and so the concept of the crystalisation of a thought) all of the aspects (both dynamic and static) and it has the attribute of possibly creating illusion. (we can also unbind in that we strip-away aspects in an orderly manner - we are required to follow steps - this use of sequence is not so strong when making distinctions by bounding/unbounding things.)

[31]
In our current culture we are very much at the level of binding, and although there are some 'hard' facts in the universe, there seems to be more 'illusion' in that as we strip-away aspects of something to identify it so the process leads to there being nothing left - the tunnel effect. (in art this is like finding 'identity' in the aspects of the lighting rather than the thing lit.) and at the same time we can group (bind) 'aspects' to create something 'real' which 'out there' is an illusion.

[32]
We can see from this how the concept of 'god' or any other form of spirituality can emerge in that it comes from the summing of aspects (and so is very much 'in here' and has the potential for being illusional or at best 'virtual'/'emergent'. But with this is the property of a 'tunnel' or 'gateway' to another level - which is exactly what we do when abstracting information. This is the manifestation of hierarchic structure at the neurological end. - but note that all 'meaning' is rooted 'in here' and has gross and predictable structure).

[33]
>From this we can also see the rejection of 'spiritual' concepts by the more logically minded in that to them it is difficult to comprehend something that 'lacks' location - their fundamental contextual consideration, but at the same time if given location the more LH oriented can be very fundamentalist. (there is also a tendency to be too literal and attempt to take metaphor as 'fact'). To refine these left/right distinctions, here are some associations:


SOME SIMPLE BRAIN HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATIONS

[34]
LH - explicit - location bias (the nature root), single context (location) and so explicit text oriented, abstracted to 'truth'; 'correct'; 'logical'; syntax. a lot of males are 'here' - intense, explicit, self-centered, self-contained, direct identification, relational considerations, good visio-spatial abilities (location bias) and so a developed sense of direction (both determining and establishing). Emotions are more positive/neutral (and unrefined, so negatives can be expressed 'intensely')

- 'direct light' - SUN analogies/metaphors. Overall text bias. Seeks closure. Reductionist --> 'location'; the removal of illusion. Has a gross language ability in that the idea is to 'get the point across explicitly' - no more than that (minimal aspects in that the message is a self-contained 'whole' such that aspects in the form of separating context and text have to be 'teased' out).

[35]
RH - implicit - difference bias (disguise creation and detection - camouflage) (the nature root (genes)), pattern-matching, multi-contexts (hue, shading etc) and so hierarchic and statistical biased perspective; makes approximations. Interference detection/creation (abstracted to the concept of illusion and revelation), indirect identification (sum of aspects) - a lot of females are 'here' in that they are very aspectual in their considerations of identity. (hierarchic context - shadings etc, harmonics considerations) - emotions can be slightly negative - critical - also very refined ('cutting')) - 'reflected light' - MOON analogies/metaphors. Overall context bias. Resists closure (leave till the last minute...) 'Wholistic'. Refinements bias. (Alchemy). Dependence. Rich language ability in that language is 'weaving', aspectual and so 'implications'. Developed sense of deception (both detecting and creating). Empathic. In our culture, intellectual development leads into this area and so an increasing requirement for being selective of aspects before 'direct' identification takes place. Note that our culture is also very much 'here' in that it is developing more and more into illusional areas in that things can have 'value' in a social 'trendy' context but are 'fantasy'/'meaningless' in the eyes of the universe 'out there'.


[36]
Combining RH and LH gives us a balancing 'middle' that uses analogy rather than the RH bias to metaphor and the LH bias to taking things literally. Our brain oscillates between RH and LH when processing novel data which is then stored as a whole and later recalled from deeper areas of the brain. This 'whole' will be a combination of RH and LH functions (but with contextually determined biases) and so the use of illusion to 'hide' (RH bias) can be mixed with the LH bias of an emphasis on location to enhance location (e.g. The self). What is important to note is that it is the initial emotive context that sets the tone for all future considerations of this whole or wholes apparently like it and this can be very difficult to change.

[37]
The strong influence of initial context is what has helped create much of counciling etc (e.g. psychoanalysis) in that it is the changing of this initial context that is required to enable the individual to 'stop' projecting the related emotions onto future events of an apparently similar vein and so mixing 'fantasy' (past/future) and 'reality' (now).


MORE CONSIDERATIONS:

[38]
'Mind' is the mixing of left and right and the degree of mixing will elicit biases in that one can operate in a context set by the other - thus gender has less and less to do with 'mind' as long as 'mind' is recognised as modifiable. (at the neurological level we are dealing with something like a lattice - a binding of text/context . Thus an infant is 'mixed' genetically but 'unrefined'. The differentiation of senses will enable selectivity but there remains the overall 'mesh' - the bandings we find in the brain show the degree of nurture refinements. o the left and right hemispheres can reflect 'male' and 'female' aspects of 'nature' that in the context of 'mind' can become mixed and so united giving the 'whole' human being and a refined sense of 'identity' and 'meaning'.

[39]
'Refined meaning' comes from the context - where the single context of the LH is just refinements on locational and so relational considerations. For the RH things get a little 'deeper' in that refinements can elicit apparent text that is in fact an illusion (cults etc can emerge from this).

[40]
These biases can emerge from neurological, pharmacological, and sociological influences but the latter is always in the context of the two former (nurture operates in a nature context - no nurture and we can still operate 'instinctively')

[41]
One will often 'pick' a position of most comfort in the possible range of LH+RH personas but will be able to shift if they have had early experience of this - otherwise the groove becomes too deep and their persona becomes entrenched. In extremely novel situations an individual can adopt a different persona but it will be unrefined and 'child-like'. Furthermore, the LH is not so interested in change as is the RH since the RH needs to maintain illusion and once an identification takes place so a shift to establish a new illusion. For the LH, once a location is established it is prefered to be kept - like a 'fact'.

[42]
The RH is strongly hierarchic and combining this with the location concerns of the LH gives us basic social structures (and games ;-)) Here we find the 'art' of social positioning and group formations.

[43]
Also note that, for example, 90+% of teachers would fall into the RH bias. (teaching by aspectual methods with a degree of critical expression).

[44]
The 'Good' 'hard'-Science biased individuals have to be LH bias with a slight RH leaning - and so 'balanced' - what Peirce would call secondness; a distinctions bias. 'Soft' Science moves more and more into aspectual considerations (but still in the middle) - hard science is into 'location' and soft into 'revelation'...thus RH is more into statistical mappings where emerging text is based on aspectual summing (and so the possibility of illusion) This allows for complexity where we have dynamic aspects that lead to 'emergence'.
[45]
In recent times some of science has moved into the areas of thirdness - especially quantum mechanics where an increase in statistical analysis emerges since we find it difficult to explicitly identify things. But this process is based on passages of time and so it is location that sets the context - which gets into the basic patterns mentioned in the next section (Mixing), as well the possibility of illusion and it is easy to see how dualistic mappings of reality can emerge.

[46]
For the more artistically inclined, explicitly 'Good' artists are also LH biased in that they assert their context (self-centered) but with a bias to using aspects to create (they play with them to intentionally create illusion) - and often their art is determined to be 'good' or 'bad' by the more aspectual thinkers rather than the artist themselves. This does not imply that RH biased artists are 'no good' but more that they are more social and aspectual in their work and so their creativity is more adaptive than innovative and so may not 'stand-out' - the 'stand-out' process needs to start at firstness to have the chance of being a 'universal' product rather than a cultural product, or else a lot of work is required to 'create' firstness. Thus the LH artist sets their own context whereas the RH artist is more into variations of somebody else (e.g. with classical music and opera - it is their interpretations that are acknowledged - their attempts at refining or capturing the aspects produced by the original composer. Thus Mozart comes across as an LH-bias individual that set the context for the RH-biased players who attempt to capture all of the aspects of his music to create a feeling of 'direct' identification - or even 'refinement').

[47]
We can see from this the continuum of possible 'types' that can emerge from LH+RH activity, as well as the 'need' of one for the other - thus reflecting our own 'linked' states within, with different levels of refinement.

Ideally it is the process of differentiation that leads to 'bias' but the process of integration that leads 'back' to wholeness.


MIXING:

[48]
Since mind is more the 'mixing' of LH and RH we need to consider all of the possible relationships and we find that in fact there are restrictions imposed by these *location(LH)+illusion(RH)* relationships (these restrictions are rooted in location concepts of A/~A) and so we find that there are statistical patterns of 27 possible forms of which 8 are 'not possible' and 19 are. This correlates with Aristotle and his considerations of the types of syllogisms where all-up there are 256 possible permutations but when the 'logic' of reality is applied these are filtered to 19.

[49]
What is of interest is that when we introduce 'illusion' (imaginative concepts rather than things from 'out there') into some of these 19, some of them 'fail'. Peirce seems to have noticed this and further filtered the possible types down to a base of 10.

[50]
Overall, these patterns emerge in LH+RH thinking - they show us the RH bias to being *selective* in aspectual considerations as well as emphasis and so the ability to elicit 'direct' identification with a minimum number of aspectual considerations - we call this intuition. ('logical' intuition is just the sudden knowing that something is 'true' or not).

[51]
Thus the 10 possible 'signs', as Peirce calls them, are forms of combinations of RH and LH data that help to elicit something 'real' - and so RH analysis HAS to be more selective in how it uses aspects - it needs the 'correct' aspects to generate an explicit identification which is not an illusion. What this brings out is a development path that has 'location' (self- centered, ID-like) as the root context and RH-like characteristics that emerge from this; so the path of mental development is the refining of LH and RH characteristics with a prefered initial context of LH-like attributes. What is important to note is that some individuals (or even cultures) could even emerge from a more RH-like context, implying that nurture can 'bend' the initial context away from the self-oriented or that even nature, in the form of genetic diversities, could lead to the birth of more RH oriented development.


[52]
These variations in possible development allow for ID-like states, that are LH rooted, to emerge in refined forms at higher levels of refinement through the mixing with SUPEREGO-like states of the RH; with age so we become more aspectual and selective in our considerations but these can still lead to 'revelations' and a sudden expression of ID-like, but refined, behaviour. (or for those who start with a more aspectual manner, become more LH bias as they age. Overall we seek balance and so 'wholeness'.)

[53]
In my own analysis of relational forms, there are 27 possible forms that result from considering ANY pair relationships over time. These emerge after about 2=D86 (2 raised to the 6th power) dichotomous considerations in the process of dichotomous analysis, and any further analysis, no matter to what depth (e.g. 2=D8100) just goes to rounding the edges of the pattern that emerges from this -an implied wave interference pattern with 19 peaks and 8 troughs. What this emphasises is that the forms are linked to the method of analysis and so can be 'illusions' - and so careful considerations must be made when analysing relational data.


DISORDERS:

There are basically two 'root' severe disorders, both of which seem to originate in context and so influence the text - the self.

[54]
In 'generic' schizophrenia the 'problem' is where the location 'splits' and becomes 'many'. Thus the reasonably self-contained individual starts to fall apart - but since there is only one context this is emotively experienced as splitting apart - as if the self is a virtual wave and stress (or hormones or wiring problems) causes this superposition of wave to break apart and go in different directions and so one location suddenly has many locations - lots of selves.

[55]
In 'generic' depression the problem is where aspects become 'enhanced' in that the time elements (LH) get lost and so the naturally contractive (negative) form of RH emotions (they bind aspectual data) affect one's aspectually determined sense of self; what text that was there has become diffuse. Thus binding emotion is 'highlighted' in that the temporal context has been removed and so location is no longer applicable. (Even in normal circumstances it is often the RH oriented who recalls negative events of some time ago whereas the LH oriented often 'forget'). This affects the sense of self-worth and so - depression (and possible suicide).

[56]
Since we are a mixture of left and right, so these diseases come in mixed forms, and combined with attention problems can lead to paranoid-schizophrenia or manic-depression in that the attention system operates on the dichotomy of intense narrow angle (mania) and diffuse wide angle (phobia), however note that the generic models suggest that both problems come from 'location' failures - the more LH oriented 'get' schizophrenia and the more RH oriented 'get' depression. ( I do realise that things may not be as simple as this 'out there' but I think this basic model does enhance our perceptions).



CONCLUSION:

[57]
Where does all of this come from? It comes from adaptions to our environment and so implies that what is 'in here' is a model of what is 'out there'. Furthermore there is feedback involved in that we use this model to make maps.

Recalling the LH/RH distinctions, where LH is more particle-like and the RH more wave-like, consider our mappings of physics:

To do this we need to go back to earlier work on light in that 'whole' light (white), when hitting a transparent boundary 'breaks' into it's aspects. - e.g. prism.

The white light is explicit - we identify it directly. It then becomes implicit in that we can only identify it by it's aspects - coloured light.

Summing the coloured light (by passing it through a reversed prism) leads to the white light emerging - but without experimentation we would not know this or else we would make suggestions on what happens when you combine the coloured light but few would think that the result would be 'white'.

Considering these structural concepts we now refine them in that prior to the work of Young, light was considered to be 'solid' - particles. We now consider Young's experiment that 'showed' light to be a wave.

This came from combining two light sources and 'seeing' interference patterns that 'suggested' waves.

Now consider Einstein's analysis of the photoelectric effect - it 'demonstrated' that light was in fact 'particles' - photons.

Now note that the pattern of derivation is the same as that used by the direct/indirect identification processes in the brain: - explicit, solid->implied,aspectual, wave-like->explicit,solid. (pre-Young,Young,Einstein)

This is first, second, third at work where we have gone 1-2-3-1

the 2 is analysis (LH+RH) and the 3 (RH) is the consideration of the aspects discovered in 2 that when summed lead to 1 (LH) (and an intense feeling of 'correctness' - 'YES', 'Eureka' etc.)

BUT the 1 that comes from 3 can be illusion. (and so the extreme LH bias to 'denying' god or spirituality 'out there' etc since it 'lacks' location. Note that this implies that wave analysis (RH) is illusional - which it is in that the waves we use in quantum mechanics etc are mathematical constructs - probability waves - rather than something 'out there'.)

IN our determination of the identity of something we either do it explicitly or implicitly where the latter is aspectual analysis - the best method used being statistics. And so we have 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'. ;-)

So here we either have 1-2-3 'out there' or else the 1-2-3 originates 'in here' and is causing us to create illusions of 'in here' and out there .

[58]
I find the above model *very* useful in describing our models as well as our methods of modelling reality and hope that the reader finds the same benefits as I have.



REFERENCES and further reading list:

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html

clo@fmsc.com.au
ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
Diana.Diamond@anu.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

Chris Lofting.
<clo@fmsc.com.au>

(copyright (c) 1997 C.J.Lofting)

NOTE: Email me for copies of this paper. They are available in text format (this email) or WORD 7 format. An HTML version will be also prepared after FORUM publication and placed on my website.

[Christopher John Lofting, age 48, is Analyst/Programmer for Computershare Ltd., - they make automated stock market trading systems. He has been in this work for 19 years and was a rock musician before that, for 10 years. University drop-out, halfway through the second year, got bored, spent a lot of time 'researching things'.

He is 'interested in what is behind our map-making in that why esoteric areas still elicit feelings of 'value' despite Science emphasising the 'lack of truth' in these sorts ofthings. As a result 'discovered' a template that emerges from the use of dichotomous analysis - common in the making of maps - this template elicits 'meaning' as is linked to the method rather than the object 'out there' - so all dichotomously derived maps 'share' meanings and so it is easy to create analogies etc. This suggests that even maths and science are metaphor (if only 'weak'). All of this is covered (if in a slightly unrefined way) at my website, which needs some rewriting after my most recent considerations. ]