From: Chris Lofting (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 17 May 2006 - 11:05:07 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
> Of Chris Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 7:37 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: RS
> Okay so I wouldn't want to get mired in the detail here but this
> is the kind of thing I'd love to see more of in a sense: That we
> (er, well not me) try to link up the kinds of (really
> horrendously complex) 'attractors' set up in the brain (that'd
> be a mind), manifest (rather cryptically) in neuronal activity,
> to the actual (sensory and/or internally-generated) inputs and
> (motor and/or internally-modifying [of internal informational
> structure]) outputs.
Which is what my IDM material focuses upon. The emphasis is on analysis of
sensory processing to identify the SAMENESS across the differences. From
that analysis comes a template of 'meaning' derivation that forms the
foundations for all of our specialist interpretations - be they of an
individual or a collective.
The self-referencing involved in the brain overall (where the brain
consolidates sensory information into abstractions we can deal with) gives
us a finite set of categories usable to describe 'all there is' in general -
and so these categories are universals. The recursion of a dichotomy means
that each set of categories derived from each step of recursion is in fact
in the form of a PAIR of categories where the abstraction means they reflect
approximations of 'out there' and when mapped can be interpreted as a
'strange attractor' - thus we move from point to limit to strange in our categorisations.
> Consider these neural net thingies -- for not much real
> infrastructure some sort of attractor appears and is then
> shaped, like clay on a wheel, by directed learning of some sort.
> Then this wonderful informational pattern (in a manner similar
> to some of the more complex 'Game of Life' patterns) absorbs
> input patterns and then burps out some sort of output before
> 'settling' back into a 'standby mode' again.
The set of categories derived from self-referencing is a set describing the
the possible expressions of the whole that is that set. Thus the 'discrete'
categories are more so exaggerations/particularisations of the expression of
the whole in response to a stimulus - tensors do this where given a stimulus
vector they 're-configure' to present the 'best fit' response to the
One interesting feature is that ALL of the categories for the whole
contribute to expression such that each category includes in its expression,
'distortions' of all of the others and we can identify these distortions using such tools as 'bit' representations and the XOR operator where that operator can extract a particular expression from the whole expression.
> Presumably this 'settling' takes some time (ms for a n.n.?).
> Perhaps our continual consciousness is like trying to settle
> onto this kind of low-power state but just as orbit is kind of
> falling where you keep missing the planet, our continual thought
> is like trying to find such a stable state (ESS?) and missing...
> Ecologies are like this also -- always trying (in a sense) to
> stabilise but never making it -- irresolvable conflicts,
> semi-stable compromises result.
> Maybe the self-reference mirror neuron stuff sets up a kind of
> (very complex) feedback that reduces the likelihood of
> 'settling' by keeping thoughts alive in some sense and
> increasing connectivity (now I really am BSing).
The self-referencing of differentiating/integrating identifies the two main
feedback processes, positive (differentiating, highs/lows extremes) and
negative (integrating, equilibrium seeking). The recursion give us
categories 'mixing' those feedback processes into complex forms of
expression and so capable of representing 'all there is' as patterns of
> The larger the set of nodes in a n.n., the more functionality
> can be compacted into this overall attractor (forgive me, that
> is just the nearest I can get to an appropriate term) that
> 'lives' in the nodes and arcs; the ability to accurately
> classify twenty letters (OCR-style) instead of doing ten well
> and averaging other (similar) ones (R/B for example).
In the context of meaning encoding/decoding the mentioned XOR dynamic
implies the encoding of information in a 'holographic-like' format. What we
experience as the whole unconsciously is greater than what we
perceive/differentiate consciously - this gets into issues of
foreground/background dynamics - see refs/comments in
Thus the categories formed from recursion of what/where are active in
parallel and so all apply to any 'moment' in that our full being is
interacting with reality as a whole even if we are unconscious of this.
Since our consciousness can deal with 5+/-2 events/things at any one moment
so if the number of categories exceeds seven then the set of categories must
be ordered into 'best-fit/worst-fit' ordering; this implies a probabilities
mapping and we do find that in basic left/right reasoning dynamics. See
abstract at the end of this post.
> Anyway I'd love to see more 'bottom up' efforts; obviously not
> actually, but through modelling and thought experiments etc.
> Reductionism has been criticised here, but to rebuild a system
> and see what 'pops out' will be waaay more informative than any
> amount of storytelling from the top down (ultimately untestable
> no matter how well such a model might perform).
The IDM model is testable and has come up with a lot of its later finding
through application of the model to specialist perspectives - in particular
Mathematics, Emotion categories, Typologies, and Eastern 'yin/yang'
categories. The focus is on the generic 'meanings' derived from recursion of
what/where being expressed by relabelling in these specialisations; and so
we use the SAME categories/qualities in different contexts through
relabelling. This ensures DIFFERENCE from the SAMENESS of the categories
where we need to differentiate 'whole' in context X from 'whole' in context
Y so we can communicate them without being confused.
> On frontal lobes, can we see them as 'weaving' new components to
> add into the overall attractor (becoming 'stored programs' or
> habits)? That way repeat stimuli would resonate with some
> component of the existing attractor. I also see that we get
> averaging (compact storage by making Platonic 'kinds' if you
> like) this way -- remember that the most attractive faces are
> the most average -- simply most representative of what a human
> should look like..? _Very_ functional to go for the average when
> trying to produce 'fit' offspring -- how's that for direct
> selection for a feature of this system we all possess!
It is this focus on resonance and so 'averages' or the 'vague' that is the
foundation of meaning as sameness. THEN come the details and so
context-sensitive and the creation of a language to represent difference.
From a networks perspective we are dealing with a 'regular' network of
POTENTIALS, where all is linked together, (genotype) and its exposure to the
'random' context to elicit customisation into phenotype aka a 'small world' network.
This process is shown in the above diagram where the middle comes out of the
exposure of the left to the right - as is the dynamics where from a small
world interpreted as if a 'regular' network comes 'smaller world' networks
and so increase specialisation/localisation. SUM these, identify the
sameness across the difference and out pops the 'general', the 'average', as
covered in the diagram at
> Can 'resonances' between features/components of that attractor
> in certain states, and say the premotor cortex, result in
> action? (i.e. in a much simplified version, a 20 Hz wave
> actually acts as a trigger to a stored program of producing a
> second wave -- a resonant frequency). Do senses, processed
> through the appropriate areas, 'add in' components to the
> overall attractor?
The 'phase locking' of brain areas show the action/memory dynamic at work.
Thus maze-running maps to (a) prefrontal cortex sequencing/planning
phase-locked with (b) hippocampus mapping of the area. The lock is through
use of the theta brain wave. See such work as:
For issues covering precision at the level of neurons see:
> Sleep would appear to be about stopping the input and turning
> off the 'linearisation machinery' (that'd be conscious us) to
> allow some sort of equilibration ('settling'). I dunno
> (clearly...) I'd just like to see some of this stuff get a
> little more joined up. A good model of the basics should start
> to give insights into how we are and hopefully make explaining
> the evolutionary route to this mind more straightforward.
There is a 'mix' going on in sleep that covers REM activity of (a) the
'sequencer' or 'logic mapper' being disabled and so lack of inhibition, of regulation of events and (b) ongoing dynamics consolidating recent experiences.
There is a relationship of high energy dynamics with increased periods of
sleep suggesting an energy-conservation dynamic overall - the elicitor of
sleep is in the 'reptilian' brain and there is the suggestion of brain
modules shutting down at different times so 'someone' is always 'awake' but
the whole is not integrated.
Of significance here is that the more a focus on control/regulation so the
more semantics is converted into syntax, all that matters is one's position
in the hierarchy. Lose this, or loosen it by sleep and things can get
'mixed' ;-) we can 'span' logical levels and so allow for novel relationships and a rich form of communication more akin to our ancestors where it is all symbolic, metaphoric and so rich in possible interpretations.
In the context of the feelings of 'I', the above comments on semantics
becoming syntax comes to the fore - especially when we consider the
experiences of stimulants such as cocaine or speed and dopaminergic
dynamics. In excess, these drugs reflect high level integration WITHIN the
differentiation of 'self'. The feeling of being 'all powerful', of being
'precise' etc leaks into the context. Introduce a difference into that context and the positive turns negative, the individual experiences paranoia.
If we shift to use of more serotonin dynamics the focus is more on
integration BETWEEN - there is a focus on cooperative dynamics with the
existing context and compared to a competitive nature with speed etc. Thus
here identity is related to local context rather than from 'within'.
These within/between feelings map to the differences of
differentiating/integrating dynamics overall and the generation of personas
in general - there is the indication that the 'specialist' groups within
collectives - and so 'drones' or 'warriors' - we find in ants, ape troops
etc are 'in' us as well but they operate at the level of the PARTICULAR as
compared to individual consciousness that is more SINGULAR.
Thus the typologies etc used in Science are typologies that identify these
'group' personas. As such the singular is not considered since these group types are based on statistical processes and so only apply to the group category.
Thus there is the indication of these 'types' being genetic and with them
comes a sense of 'connectedness' as a group member.
With the development of SELF and so an increase in precision comes the
dynamics of singular/particular and that can lead to 'confusion' of "I" as a
unique individual and so 'beyond compare' vs "I" as a member of a group
where we all have the same overall 'traits' in behaviour where their roots
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 17 May 2006 - 11:38:11 GMT