RE: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 04:00:59 BST

  • Next message: Aaron Lynch: "Re: Fwd: [COMPLEX-M] "Intelligent Design" lobby Congress against Darwinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA09871 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:48:13 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center
    Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:00:59 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEEFCGAA.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)
    Importance: Normal
    In-Reply-To: <3914A25C.1B6E9A95@mediaone.net>
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Chuck,

    sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I have been in the US for a
    while and had problems accessing my aussie IPS! As a result a lot of the
    memetics emails were deleted and I felt better to delay my reply until I got
    back to the land of OZ.

    ......

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Chuck Palson
    > Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2000 8:53
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center
    >
    >
    > See questions in reply text:
    >
    > Diana Diamond wrote:
    >
    > > you can trace the right/wrong distinctions back to the
    > Reptilian brain and the mapping of territory using waypoints (as
    > in 'mine..not mine..mine) etc this gets abstracted into
    > correct/incorrect, right/wrong etc
    >
    > What is the reference here? I have never heard of this langauge
    > being applied to the brain. By Reptilian, do you simply mean the
    > lymbic system?
    >

    RAS areas. Some early work was done in this in the 60s where lesions
    introduced here lead to unconsciousness -- forever. There is behaviourally a
    distinct 'me' vs 'not me' process as this area seems to be the 'in
    here'/'out there' interface.

    MacLean's work (and the findings of others) suggest a complexity based
    development system where the same patterns repeat at 'higher' levels but in
    a more refined form.

    When you move into the limbic areas you find the first level of 'clear'
    hemisphere formation which is then refined in the neocortex.

    THe waypoint mappings method is linked to the hippocampus and the linking of
    memories. There was some research that wired-up the hippocampus of rats as
    they ran a maze and that seemed to show a waypoint methodology. If you
    accept this concept then you can see the origins of syntax and such abstract
    concepts of truth where the origin of the concept can be linked back to
    ownership (mine vs not mine) and territorial drives.

    > >
    > >
    > > The neurological and psychological data
    >
    > What psychological data?

    see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html for some refs. I have a
    lot more to add which I will endevour to do over the next few weeks! :-)

    >
    > > suggests that there is a PRIMARY process in allowing data to
    > 'enter' 'in here' and this is a filtering system based on rigid
    > EITHER/OR distinction making.
    >
    > Rigid? There are no algorythms? There is no step process?

    The stimulus/response can include an algorithm either genetically derived or
    learnt. Regardless of scale there is still an EITHER/OR process at work.

     What
    > kind of experiments illustrate this? I am asking this because
    > from what I know about the brain, any such either/or criteria
    > would have to be at an extremely low level. If so, why would you
    > think this could be related to memetics since it is at such a low
    > level? Could you give an example, perhaps, of the types of
    > information you are
    > talking about?

    ANything processing objects over relationships. See some of the pages at
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting

    >
    > > Once any data gets passed this it then comes under SECONDARY
    > processing that assumes that since it got past the primary it
    > MUST be meaningful in some way; thus in secondary thinking all is
    > meaningful.
    > >
    > > This secondary processing deals with the analysis of harmonics
    > such that you can bring out or suppress aspects of data allowing
    > for a more 'refined' image of the data to emerge. This processing
    > includes the use of internal feedback processes in the from of
    > memories that are added to enhance meaning.
    > >
    >
    > Again, this does not ring a bell with me. What kinds of data are
    > you referring to?
    >

    see ref list. see eisa pages.

    > >
    > > If the primary process is at fault, or allows through something
    > 'random' so the secondary process, being as trusting of the
    > primary as it is, cannot tell that there is a 'fault' and will
    > treat the data as all other data it gets.
    > >
    > > The trick is to get past the primary processing, the barrier,
    > and the way to do that is to use a wave approach...
    > >
    > > Thus understanding how the primary process works as well as its
    > 'location' in the brain is useful if you want to (a) bypass it
    > and get you message 'in here' without moral filtering or (b)
    > build it up, make it either very rigid or more discerning when
    > processing data.
    > >
    >
    > "Moral filtering"? Again, I can't imagine that the kind of
    > primary filtering you are talking about would be involved. I need
    > examples.
    >

    The process of analysis of any object/relationship is a process that takes a
    'raw' concept and re-identifies it by colouring it with personal and
    cultural 'meanings'. After a while this process leads to habituation where
    the now 'refined' object becomes part of the filtering process we use to
    identify things. The innocence of childhood gives way to filtering
    processes; once you burn your hand on the hot stove you modify your
    behaviour and develop a 'habit' that becomes stimulus/response (EITHER/OR)
    in expression. This EITHER/OR can include 'steps', an algorithm, but it is
    not conscious, you just 'do it'.

    The SECONDARY processes I mentioned are the feedback processes that go to
    re-identifying a concept. Once this re-identification has taken place so the
    concept is now part of the PRIMARY process's database of filters. This
    database would combine genetic filters with those derived from nurture.

    best,

    Chris.

    ------------------
    Chris Lofting
    websites:
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
    >

    ===============================================================
    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 Jun 02 2000 - 03:49:45 BST