Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA16188 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 3 Jun 2000 02:53:46 +0100 Message-ID: <39381E67.E99D823F@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 21:51:51 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEEFCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chris Lofting wrote:
> 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.
I can believe that. I can't remember who did it now - but it was in the 1970s.
They found that a seemingly conscious decision was made fully 1 second earlier
in the lymbic system.
>
>
> 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 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 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 02:54:31 BST