ABSTRACT

In R10 Muller makes some comments that I feel need correction since they seem to be based on some misconceptions possibly caused by my style of writing. Rather than 'lump' everything together I intend to respond 'bit by bit' and so enable the sorting of chaff from wheat.

This particular response deals with some comments made by Muller in his response concerning MIR.

<1>

In [5] Muller states that:

"..[it is suggested that Lofting] believes in a mind-independent reality or MIR..."

and further that:

"Templates (including mathematics) are inside, reality and truth are outside, [Lofting] says in effect. Thereafter [Lofting] has a problem in bringing to two together, on which task he spends much time."

<2>

Muller then goes on to assert in [6] that:

"...the MIR position is not tenable...MIR views can serve adequately for thinking about brain-physiology...but not about subjective experience.."

<3>

To start with, I do not consider mathematics as a template, it is a methodology using symbols and metaphors to describe whole/aspects interactions and serves to 'refine' and so express the whole/aspects potentials that are encoded in the whole/aspects template. All descriptions, either Science and Mathematics, or Astrology and Tarot are methods using symbols and metaphors for describing wholes and their aspects and so we can find 'value' and 'truth' in all of them; not because they are 'real' but because what is behind them is 'real'; the whole/aspects template with its associated set of potential and expressed 'meanings'.

<4>

Concepts like 'truth' are nothing but labels given to contextual patterns that seem invariant over time. Our reductionist seeking brain strips away the chaff to identify the wheat; to point and assert identity -- "YES! THATS IT!" and cultural consensus goes to determining 'value' and to establishing whether we consider the pattern as a 'truth' or not, but once established as such it is taught as such to a degree where it 'feels' hard and 'absolute' and 'one' -- an eternal 'whole'.

<5>

MDR (Mind-dependent reality) is founded on our senses and our encoding the data with 'value'; so much so that we can be totally 'blind' to aspects of 'out there' based on our values 'in here'. MDR assumes that our senses are getting 'correct' information from 'out there' and so an implicit assertion of the existance of MIR; thus MIR is 'ontic' to MDR which is 'epistemic' (I include senses and brain as being 'covered' by the term 'MIND').

<6>

However, recent neurological studies suggest that prior to the moment of birth our senses are not differentiated -- they reflect potentials rather than actuals and once birth occurs so any lack of stimulation of neurons set aside potentially for a specific sense, are culled or taken-over by surrounding stimulated neural networks. These suggest the possibility of sensory hybridisation where neuron networks are shared by different sensory systems and all of this occurs before the explicit expression of 'MIND' such that MIR goes to determining MDR. (and so the presence of synesthesia in infants which in the majority of cases 'disappears' with age - implying 'satisfactory' sensory differentiations have occurred. Outside of sensory mixing, the only system that enables the translation of one sensory experience into that of another is emotion in that sensory aspects (modalities) translate to frequency/wavelength (harmonics) and these elicit emotions.)

<7>

If this is the case then a feedback loop comes into force where the genetically determined potentials are expressed in ways dictated by MIR and this loop 'refines' the genetic 'generalities' into particular expressions that enables the establishment of a 'successful' relationship between 'in here' and 'out there' and this includes the developing and refining of MDR as well as our understanding of MIR.

<8>

However, this implies that subjective experience has 'form' and this is 'refined' and 'tuned' by the MIR/MDR relationships. Furthermore, this form is found in our senses in that they all respond to text/context distinctions and so subjective experience is not 'only me' since there are elements that I share with others and it is these that allow for concepts like empathy and sympathy; there are parts of 'me' that also exist in 'others' and these parts in 'others' can resonate with 'me' in that they are tuned the same way.

<9>

The emphasis on text/context, particular/general, MIR/MDR, syntax/semantics, leads us to the template in that these distinctions create a dichotomy and this dichotomy, once developed recursively has meaning built into it regardless of 'reality'; unless 'reality' is founded on dichotomisations (and there is the suggestion that it is but there donÆt seem to be any hormones 'out there' 'marking' value). To extend this, consider a 'universe of discourse' based on the MIR/MDR dichotomy. The common theme is mind and reality and the distinction is independent/dependent.

<10>

We can reduce this to MIR/~MIR and so to whole/aspects representations (1:many) in that MIR is the whole and ~MIR is the 'rest' that includes aspects of the whole as well as the negation of the whole (aka MDR). (note that if we used independent/dependent we get the SAME 1:many relationship. but the dependence link to 'many' becomes implicit - -we tend to see it as '1:1', like 'yes/no' -- however the brain actually treats these as 1:many relationships (1 context : many contexts). unless TRAINED otherwise).

<11>

If we now expand on the 'whole' that is MIR so we get a pattern:

MIR : static relationships of MIR : parts of MIR : dynamic relationships of MIR ~MIR : static relationships of ~MIR : parts of ~MIR : dynamic relationships of ~MIR

<12>

What this says is that the moment we dichotomise so the above pattern 'pops-out' ready to accept more details regardless of the nature of the dichotomy. Furthermore, this is applicable to MIR AND MDR in that subjective information space HAS THE SAME FORM OVERALL as objective information space BUT the entanglement of BOTH leads to a continuum of possible MIR/MDR states where 'pure' MIR and MDR are EXTREME conditions and VERY rare...but also note that this entanglement comes from the METHOD of analysis. (If you graph all of the possible states so you get a normal distribution curve when considering the probability of the specific expression of a state. If you then look at the dynamics of their interactions (and so lose some specifics) so you 'get' a wave interference pattern -- another property of the method.)

<13>

Furthermore, with the text for each pattern partition (i.e. 'whole', 'dynamic' etc) comes context in the form of a 'feel' where, at the 'simplistic' level we have blend, bond, bound, and bind (as well as their negative forms) and this gives us 'meaning'. These terms are based on the 'fact' that recursive dichotomisation means the creation of descriptions based on the mixing of the elements of the dichotomy at the previous level at each new level of recursion.

<14>

For example, I assert black/white. I then 'zoom'-in to this (1st recursion) and 'see' some white in the black and some black in the white. I now have: ALL BLACK : BLACK + SOME WHITE : WHITE + SOME BLACK : ALL WHITE

This then becomes my 'base' and I zoom-in again. As I keep doing this so the ALL BLACK and ALL WHITE get pushed further and further away from the middle and I start to get mixing in the form of shades of grey occupying the areas between the 'pure' black and 'pure' white. If I maintain partitioning I then find that when using dichotomy to describe things so each 'cell' has a 'feel' to it (these have been derived heuristically by going through MANY dichotomy-rooted methodologies and considering the 'basics' of how we describe different forms of mixing two elements). Note in this that we still see a slight 'bias' in all cells to the original context of 'BLACK' or 'WHITE' no matter how 'deep' we go.

<15>

'looking' at the base template so the second level of derivation makes the distinction between the concept of purity (blending) and parts (bounding); so BLACK + WHITE and WHITE + BLACK falls into the distinction section of parts and bounding.

<16>

It is at the third level that 'rich' elements emerge that allow me to 'mix' cells into more composite forms where the third level sees the emergence of relational 'markers' -- static (bonding) and dynamic (binding). I find that I can now 'mix' these into text/context formats where I have blending in a bonding context and so on. These mixing patterns are then given labels and I will show in a later response how the labels for many dichotomy-derived categorisation systems in fact point to the same context-resident 'mixing' patterns that are 'tied' to the METHOD of dichotomous analysis (thus the 'text' maybe 'out there' and MIR related but the context is the 'feel' we get and so very much 'in here' - MDR).

<17>

In [7] Muller questions my assertion in the abstract of TA6 C1 that: "The consideration of Quantum Mechanics as something 'independent' of humans sometimes leads to the failure to recognise that [QM] is a 'mapping' system created by 'in here' to help describe specific processes 'out there'..."

What this is saying is that QM is a specific methodology for describing whole/aspects interactions in a specific context. The general label 'QM' covers a number of behavioural patterns used to elicit and/or study patterns 'out there' (MIR), but what we fail to see is that the method has patterns built-in (it is founded on dichotomisations) and these can be confused with patterns 'out there' such that we think these method-produced patterns are in fact parts of MIR but are in-fact MDR and it is this 'entanglement' that leads to the observation of 'wave/particle' dualities etc. (many forgetting that the wave equation is an abstract mathematical construct rather than something 'real'; it is an example of using the wave metaphor for describing degrees of probability.)

<18>

In [7] Muller goes on to ask:

"..does [Lofting] or does he not believe that reality and truth are mind-independent? Are 'in here' and 'out there' the same as 'subject' and 'object'?"

These are all dichotomies and so the range of possible answers depending on context (and so the different levels of the template). For example, linking truth, and mind-independent creates two dichotomies. Contextually you can make the MI/~MI dichotomy at the 'base' and then add the truth/~truth. This gives us four possible states:

MI + truth
MI + ~truth
~MI + truth
~MI + ~truth

<19>

In 'feeling', the first and the last favour 'whole' feelings (blend), either negative or positive, and the middle two favour 'mixed' feelings -- (bound) and so explicit distinction making.

expanding these, so

MI + truth says "there is a mind-independent reality that 'contains' truth -- it is ALL absolute and so 'whole'" MI + ~truth says "there is a mind-independent reality BUT there is no 'absolute' truth and so the presence of distinction (parts). etc. (note the emergence of SOME from ALL...the template shows the derivation of logic. At level 2 so the absolute 'totalism' of level 1 gives way to an emerging relativism at level 2.)

<20>

These can then be refined through recursion but the method determines the results and so 'meanings' of these refinements and these processes give you the genotypes from which we then choose to express a particular 'thread'. So, in answer to Muller's question -- pick a thread ;-) I dont mind which one since for me context determines which one I choose. Ideally the choice is the one that enables 'stability' and 'bang for buck'; that seems to be the 'preferred' thread for nature but the oscillations from specifics to generals leads to variations depending on context.

Chris Lofting
<clo@fmsc.com.au>