Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA12111 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:03:44 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 04:13:29 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEBACFAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-reply-to: <200003222142.QAA09833@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2000 8:46
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition
>
>
> From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition
> Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:54:08 +1100
> Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > > Of Joe E. Dees
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2000 4:40
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Self-Acquisition
> > >
> > >
> > > As i mentioned before, the idea of a self is taught to us by our
> > > primary caregivers, whom we distinguish from the surrounding
> > > environment on the basis of their meaning-laden, purposeful and
> > > responsive behavior. We then internalize this distinction and
> > > ourselves become individual self-conceivers among others.
> >
> > nope. IF you look at the development of mental states from
> mammals through
> > primates to us so the concept of self comes first. In monkey
> studies there
> > is a sense of SELF-awareness but NOT of OTHERS-awareness where
> OTHERS means
> > OTHER MINDS. There seems to be a mental state where actions performed by
> > others are seen as being 'somehow' programmed/controlled by 'me'.
> >
> No, the work done by Lewis and Brooks-Gunn in SOCIAL
> COGNITION AND THE ACQUISITION OF SELF clearly shows that
> when the species being tested does not recognize a mirror image
> as an image of itself (demonstrating self-awareness), it regards that
> image as the image of a conspecific (another member of the same
> species). Baboons, for instance, attack their mirrored reflections.
which implies a GENETIC stimulus/response behaviour. Awareness develops from
feedback processes and so a developing stimulus/considered response process.
Furthermore self awareness does not necessarily mean immediate recognition
in a mirror :-)
The studies using apes showed a developing sense of self but not recognition
of other MINDS.
<snip>
> >
> > Note that the sense of self is an object sense, it is a sense based on
> > precision, on the assertion of the personal pronoun, "I".
> >
> No, the sense of self occurs in human infants prior to their
> mastering even the rudiments of speech; they know that they exist
> before they can even use the personal pronoun "I". This is why
> mirror tests were devised; to investigate the prelinguistic
> psychogenesis of self-awareness.
> >
BIG misinterpretation here Joe, but perhaps I was not clear, I did not refer
to the use of language but more the physical assertion of a feeling that is
linkable to "I".
> > We can link this to the concept of oneness, wholeness, and in doing so
> > introduce the concept of encapsulation.
> >
> > The pointedness reflected in the concept of "I" is also
> reflected in those
> > parts of our neurological and psychological development concerned with
> > territorial mapping where we can see the emergence of the distinction of
> > 'mine' from 'not mine'. Note the emphasis on MINE rather than OURS.
> >
> Subjectivity is in each case mine, to paraphrase Martin Heidegger,
> but the only way something can be "not mine" is if it belongs to an
> "other", or to "no one" (out of a field of others). Either of these
> alternatives acknowledges the existence of others.
This is the barrier between SELF and OTHERS in that the concept of negation
comes from the recognition of CONTEXT. CONTEXT is background material, rules
and regulations that go towards controlling/guiding the individual. CONTEXT
is NOT consciously RECOGNISED at the basic gene level. you need discernment
to do it; the intentional processing of dichotomies.
In this sense, prior to the dichotomy is a 'one' state. This is positive as
we see in infants where their explorations etc lead to the experience and so
recognition of negation in the form of getting burnt or getting punished by
others.
This same 'one' state is also shared by fundamentalists, psychotics etc
where delusions emerge where negation is not realised.
CONTEXT is part of the SECONDARY process and is linked to feedback and so
the emergence of discernment. This discernment is not found in the very
young in general, it has to be learnt.
> >
> > As we see in hippocampus, there is a link of waypoint mapping
> to territorial
> > mapping and this leads to the abstraction of mine/not mine to
> > correct/incorrect. Further abstraction takes us into the
> neocortex and the
> > root of syntactic processing which is sourced in that part of
> the brain best
> > associated with object thinking, encapsulated thinking, SELF thinking.
> >
> This granting of specific semantic specifications (mine/not mine,
> correct/incorrect), for all humans, to a particular midbrain (limbic
> system) component which is known primarily for its roles in
> memory and emotion is a speculation without scientific basis at
> the present state of cognitive science.
I was being brief. If you study the literature carefully you find a
development path from reptilian brain through limbic to neocortex where
different degrees of emotion etc are expressed including the
'correct/incorrect' distinction. IOW the 'mine/not mine' is closer to
reptilian thinking and the 'correct/incorrect' is closer to
limbic/neocortical thinking.
The Damasio et al re the syntax 'feeling' was not in his books -- you should
read journals more :-) This particular paper was in 1995 copy of Journal of
Cognitive Science (?I think, cant recall the month, will try and dig it up
if you cannot. Note the et al, it was a paper with a few others involved).
Current speculation upon
> the location of Antonio Damasio's "sense of self" includes, but is
> not limited to, the midbrain (primarily the reticular activating
> system).
Which goes along with my comments re reptilian development forward. If you
review the development processes (see MacLeans work in this) so the left
hemisphere of the neocortex is behaviourally a refinement of the left
'pseudo-hemisphere' of the limbic system which is a refinement of the RAS.
In neurochemical processing you move from 'bulk' chemistry to refined
neuropeptides. Behaviourally you move from a mechanistic approach (reptiles
have to move to deal with hot/cold0 through the more refined neurchemical
approach (mammals sweat and shiver) to the even more refined electromagnetic
approach (we think and create reverse cycle airconditioning).
At all levels of analysis we see this refinement process but the
fundamentals are the same, objects and relationships. Thus there is the
suggestion that MIND emerges from feedback processes but SELF emerges from
object biases.
The blunt A OR B nature of the RAS is refined to become more discerning as
we move up the development path but the basic characteristics remain, they
just become more refined. Thus there is an object sense as a fundamental all
the way up.
> >
> > The emotion linked to the syntax concept has been located by
> Demasio et al.,
> > in the left hemisphere of the brain. Thus there is a fundamental emotion
> > linked to the concept of "I".
> >
> Emotions are generated in the limbic system, which is midbrain. I
> own two of Damasio's books (Descartes' Error and The Feeling of
> What Happens); please refer me to pagination for this contention.
See above comments re you reading more journals. Not everything he as done
with others is necessarily in his books. :-)
> The linguistic system itself is rooted in Broca's area, Wernicke's
> area, and the arcuate fasciculus which connects them across the
> Sylvan fissure. And in lefties, this all is found in the right
> hemisphere, as it is linked to handedness and contralateral control.
No. It is linked to PRECISION. The hemisphere that is more object oriented
and so more precise exerts control of handedness etc as well as footedness,
eyeness etc etc
The left hand / right hand manifests the feedback processes present in that
we have at least FOUR types:
PURE LEFT
PURE RIGHT
HOOKED LEFT
HOOKED RIGHT
Same pattern as in dominant/recessive (DD,Dr,rD,rr). The hooked forms
suggest an entanglement of the precision bias with the other side.
If you zoom in on the behavioural characteristics of the neocortical
hemispheres you find this sort of entanglment, this the general
characteristics of left hemisphere vs right hemisphere are found in lobe
relationships within each hemisphere, thus the temporal/parietal lobe
relationships mimic the more general left/right (temporal is more objects
oriented, parietal is more relationships. LEFT is more precise, RIGHT is
more general). Zoom in again to particular lobes and you find the SAME
relationships in columns of neurons (e.g. the contralateral/ipsilateral
links in the frontal lobes of BOTH hemispheres). OVerall we are dealing with
a weaving of basic threads -- the WHAT thread and the WHERE thread. Refine
these and you get who, which, when, how etc WHY is a value judgement and so
should share space across both.
> >
> > This concept, being linked to that part of the brain that, in most, is
> > biased to the assertion of precision, of 'pointedness', is gene based in
> > that the fundamental distinctions at the neurological level deals with
> > wholes and parts aka objects. Thus the concept of SELF, the awareness of
> > SELF, has emerged from more reptilian thinking linked to territorial
> > mapping. This goes as far as asserting that the concept of a
> truth is also
> > stemmed from territorial mapping in that an absolute truth is
> as precise as
> > "I".
> >
> Precision in elaboration of a vocabulary was preceded by precision
> in fashioning and using tools.
There is the suggestion that the use of sound led to a more developed
quantitative precision hemisphere bias in that triangulation is more precise
than our visual system. This said it has been demonstrated that the RIGHT
hemisphere in most processes harmonics in the form of frequency patterns
(also linked to the limbic system -- amygdala to be precise). Higher
frequencies become more 'pointed' and the particular oriented LEFT deals
better with these. (But dont forget the zoom functions such that within each
hemisphere, at different scales, are elements of the other)
Interestingly, any sounds that are UNKNOWN are initially processed by the
RIGHT hemisphere since this hemisphere, being more relationships oriented,
is sensitive to context checking so we have a WHAT in the right in the form
of 'what is that sound? what is BEHIND it?' It is this looking BEHIND that
emphasises the use of contextual analysis.
The precision of the left is expressed in the bias to the left processing
KNOWN sensations, those that are identified since this seems to be the
overall function of the object hemisphere, to PRECISELY IDENTIFY.
The right seems to have characteristics that are used to RE-IDENTIFY through
exageration or suppression of aspects to 'bring out' something. Note that
these are SECONDARY processes in that you must have objects before you can
have relationships.
<snip>
> Self-awareness is permitted by the evolution of a large enough and
> complex enough brain to breach the Godelian barrier and allow for
> recursion, but this is a capacity which is realized only in the
> maturation of individual humans. There is no such thing as a
> genetically coded "self-concept" sequence.
Dont be so sure :-)
> >
> > Since there is a gene based element so that element is the
> 'root' SELF. The
> > assertion of "I AM" stems from this in that there is no intent
> behind this,
> > there is just a fundamental feeling of "MINE", "ME", "ONE".
> There is nothing
> > else. This is like a random process where something just
> 'happens', there is
> > no intent. This is a PRIMARY process.
> >
> Intentionality and signification are dependent upon subjectivity for
> their existence. I think that Damasio's idea of a "proto-self" is a
> useful one, but see it as quite compatible with my memetic
> position. To feel a self is to intend it via self-perception.
> >
> > The SECONDARY process is in the refinement of the expression of
> SELF through
> > the use of exageration and/or suppression of aspects to try and add some
> > qualitative precision to the basic assertion.
> >
> This is the realm of the self-concept, which is indeed memetic,
> unlike self-awareness, which is necessary for the self-concept
> memesis, but is not itself a meme.
> >
> > The SECONDARY process (and this is the world of memes) works in
> a context of
> > total faith in the primary such that all experiences are deemed to have
> > meaning. In the secondary process the concept of randomness
> does not exist
> > since this process is relationally biased and works on there
> being at least
> > TWO objects (basic one is 'me' and 'context'); the secondary
> process works
> > in the space in-between objects (without objects there are no
> > relationships).
> >
> Randomness and order are correlatively opposite and mutually
> defining conceptions; neither can exist without the other as a
> specific and differentiable conception, as each derives its meaning
> by comparison and contrast with the other.
See the random material at the newer website http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
This also gets into the experience of everything seeming to be meaningful.
best
Chris.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 24 2000 - 17:03:57 GMT