A neural prism is simply the mimicing by the neurology of the conversion of a whole (white light, complex sound) into its parts (colours, harmonics). The concept of a neural prism is manifest in such areas as the auditory channels within the brain and we can extend the concept to visual as well (Refs below). What is noticable is that in a prism the expression of the parts (e.g. the colour spectrum) can be interpreted as if a sequence and this interpretation can lead to illusions regarding ordinality, cardinality, and the general operations of the brain/mind whilst it attempts to make maps of 'out there' as well as 'in here'. I have drawn an example of a neural prism at http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/prism.JPG. Please view it and use it as reference for what follows. One feature of the brain that is well documented is the sharing of neurons or neural networks by the senses as well as the abstraction of networks for 'higher' duties and this includes the processing of abstract data, concepts, ideas etc In this article we speculate on the use of neural prisms in abstraction processing and from that the development of a sense of 'meaning'. There is the suggestion that neural prisms can come in two flavours, the visual biased prism that is like a light passing through the prism to be immediately split up, and the more detailed version utilising steps (ordinality bias), as we find in detailed binary tree derivations. (it is possible we are dealing with the same thing but that needs to be fleshed-out more. The visual format has an aire of intuition about it, the 'instant' realisation of something, when compared to the slightly more ordinal biased, gradually developing, binary tree emphasis). If we use the binary tree model, one of the properties is that of pairing where the so-called sequence (see above diagram) is in fact made-up of pairs, nodes of the binary tree - see also http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/btree.JPG A major question here is regarding our concepts of ordinality in experimentations where prismic processes that are interpreted as 'from A to B' and so a 'sequence' are more a linking of qualitative differences that get 'ordered' by the method of derivation and as such may have no sequential 'meaning'; the 'sequence' is more of a histogram of qualities (in light expressed as colours). Thus the derivation process allows us to work 'in reverse' and so consider such concepts as time reversal, distortions etc etc simply because the 'sequence' can tolerate chopping and changing of qualities in the 'sequence' since in 'reality' it isnt a sequence! (This of course has connotations re our concepts of causality etc which I leave for others to ponder upon.) Since we are an adaptive species, the refined derivation of data using prismic processes as described above can lead to a sense of continuity 'across' the elements of the derivation, and this sensing can serve a useful purpose even if initially 'meaningless'; the 'deeper' the derivation so the more refined the experience of continuity and so a development of 'consciousness' as an experience of step-after-step, moment-to-moment awareness of existence. Note from the above diagram, btree.JPG, that each level adds a degree of 'meaning' that gets more and more refined as we go deeper in the derivation process (recursion) and so 'links-up' the pairs in the 'sequence' to develop a sense of continuity; IOW each level acts like a wave of differing amplitudes and as we go deeper so these waves add-up to give the illusion of 'continuity'. (Note that in lower lifeforms so this degree of continuity is limited/missing suggesting they have not developed past some threshold where all of the pairs 'link-up' to give a degree of continuity that can build libraries to house memories etc) It is documented in the literature on emotions and the brain that emotion is attuned to respond to frequencies where in particular the frequencies represent harmonics of audition and vision. This response system would benefit from the ordering of frequency components derived from any general data that is being processed, where the emergence of an ordinal sense can be extended into the development of language. This ordinalisation acts to take the general data and communicate it through refined emotions. Placing the emotions in order in the form of words that then get transmitted as a 'whole' enables a 'precise' communication ready to be broken down by other receiving parties. This ordering of communications, whether a sentence, paragraph etc., is a histogram of the qualitative elements of the whole message, and 'empathy', emotional resonance, is achieved when the identical histogram is created in the brain of the receiver. We must note that feedback processes in the form of memories can act in a cardinal, a topological, way to exagerate/distort incoming data such that the feedback can either refine (constructive interference) or destroy (destructive interference) the intent of the incoming message. (In the neuron the receiving areas (dendrites) are biased to wave amplitude modulation (AM) whereas the transmission area (axon) is more single context, frequency modulation (FM) biased. See http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/neuron1.gif for more on this. The AM bias points to a topological bias when compared to the more discrete, precise, 'clear' expression in FM.) By understanding the distinctions of ordinality and cardinality, by recognising that cardinality is rooted in topology and as such has a very 'general' emphasis on precision and so recognising the emergence from evolution processes of a method to particularise the general and so refine the general, to be more precise, has led to the solving of a 3000 year old 'problem' relating to a 'sequence' of symbols. We now know that this 'sequence' of symbols is in fact the expression of a binary tree derivation process working vertically that leads to the emergence of a pattern horizontally (you can also have visa versa -- h to v). This sequence takes on the properties of light, where the sequence has a qualitative element, each symbol takes on a 'colour' that elicits a sense of 'meaning'. In the sequence in question the meaning was not precise simply because there was no understanding of the method of derivation; the intent of the originator. The assumption was that the ordering was 'primary' rather than something derived from cardinality processes and so secondary. Once the method of derivation was identified so things fell into place very quickly to an extant where meanings identified within the system became 'obvious'. What is of note here is that at the neocortical level, across the frontal lobes of both hemispheres, we find the same pattern as we do in the binary tree 'sequence' and that includes 'pairing' or as P. Goldman-Rakic calls it 'interdigitations' where we see the entanglement of left and right hemisphere connections. (see bottom diagram of http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/hemis.JPG ) Furthermore these frontal lobe areas are strongly concerned with ordinality -- planning etc and are the last areas in the brain to develop suggesting the whole brain acts like a neural prism with data coming from posterior areas to be dispersed to more discrete, more specialised neural networks and eventually organised, ordinalised, prior to expression. Since the individual neuron contains these prism properties, where in the brain the axon connection is to many dendrite regions of other neurons, so we see a 'fractal' like formation of a prism in the whole brain. The emphasis on neural prisms favours the emphasis on adaption to light as well as sound enabling the development of refined communication skills using abstractions of the orginal adaptions of our senses to our environment. Identifying the 'illusion' of ordinality points to properties of the method of derivation 'shining through' the ordinal biases that develop when we start to talk; from a cardinal perspective communication is more the processing of spectrums that elicit patterns of emotion. These processes are 'hidden' by the emphasis on the spoken word and so ordinal processing. We know that in most individuals the 'right' brain is more biased to topological issues and in infants is more developed, pointing to early development being an exercise in topology where the genetics twists and turns, squeezes and pulls as it adapts to the local environment. A sense of the ordinal develops later especially with the development of speech such that the cardinal gets 'pushed aside' becoming specialised in context processing and *general* relational issues including identifications through metaphors and implications -- all processes that require distortions/exagerations -- as well as 'colouring' communications using emotions. The developed bias to ordinality due to speech can force us to overlook patterns in information that are not ordinal but are in fact sourced in the cardinal. This includes such 'simple' concepts as 'odd/even' which in our number system comes as a pair, reflecting the underlying methodology used to process cardinality and over which we impose ordinality. There is the suggestion in this that the making of a distinction, which always leads to the identification of a dichotomy, forces the creation in our minds of a 'meaning' space and that space is created using recursion and so the emergence of binary tree formats and pairings. The 'meaning' space now becomes a 'sequence' space that is more a histogram of meanings encoded in the distinction we have made. (BTW - Note Prof J Pettigrew's comment on a 'left' brain sensitivity to the horizontal (http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/jack.html - papers on hemisphere switching) The sequence space has properties that allow us to interpret the content 'in reverse' or to chop and change the content around; the structure of the space allows us to suspend thermodynamic issues and in doing so use the space to build our maps of reality. This ability to distort/exagerate and so allow for 'novel' concepts reflects the topological roots of the space. The success of this is in the rich creative processes that can be performed but the illusion of the ordinal also allows for the creation of illusions since the space lacks ordinality itself; the space has a more spectral format that can be interpreted as if ordinal (left-to-right) but is more 'vertical'. The illusions of ordinality are identifiable when we notice the space contain pairs in that the identification of pairs reflects properties of the unconscious method of data processing, the taking of an expression, something cardinal, and zooming-in for details using recursive dichotomisation (IOW discretisation which is akin to cutting, something the topologically biased 'right' brain has a problem with since for it 'all is linked together' - and so coffee-cups are the 'same' as doughnuts). The illusion of the ordinal comes when we 'connect' the pairs into a 'meaningful' sequence. If the meaning remains 'hazy' then there is the suggestion of illusion (or else a need to 'go deeper'). All of the above touches on the very foundations of our thinking, on our reflections on consciousness as well as the structures of our maps including the encoding of illusions based on misconceptions regarding ordinality and cardinality. The illusion of the ordinal is the root of our concepts of time, of causality etc and as such there is the suggestion that the emergence of consciousness in the form of awareness of moment-to-moment in self and in others was a chance event, a product of an adaption in deriving precision; those lifeforms that instinctively 'drilled-down' further when processing information developed an edge in the form of weak senses of connectivity that became extremely refined in 'us' and in doing so introduced us to the ability to make maps and from those make predictions. In conclusion I would like to point out how the process described, of moving from cardinal to ordinal and so from diffuse to detail, from general to particular, from approximation to precision, reflects the functionality we identify in DNA/RNA processes where mRNA favours an ordinal bias, a precise gene coded in EXACT order, when compare to the more cardinal, the more topologically sensitive DNA where a 'gene' is spread-out requiring distortions, exagerations, re-combinations, cutting and pasting to extract the 'pure' gene. The 'sequence' is also seen as an illusion in that elements of gene code can be read both ways as well as overlap etc etc. If mRNA 'space' is like the discussed 'sequence' space then the ordinal bias 'hides' cardinal processes encoded in the sequence; the 'sequence' is interpretable more as a histogram of qualitative expressions within the 'gene'; thus 'start' and 'end' markers in the codes serve as identifiers of the boundary that contains the gene's spectrum where communication is by spectrum exchange. The 'fact' that in the helixs we can clearly identify pairings in the codes points to topological roots, suggests that the mRNA 'sequence' isnt just that; there are relational issues within that add complexity to the 'simple' mRNA strand and to analyse those strands from an ordinal perspective can lead to confusion; all of the 'sequences' identified in the HGP, all of the surprisingly 'few' genes present point to possible mis-interpretations where ordinality hides properties that are cardinal and due to the ordinal bias in perspective these properties have as yet not been clearly identified. By understand HOW we perceive so we can be more precise in our perceptions and easily deal with confusions due to ordinal/cardinal entanglements. Chris Lofting. Further reading/refs: The 'sequence' space in quantum mechanics : http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/bits.html General neurology/cognitive science refs see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html for more 'heavy' going: For modeling see: Koch, C., and Segev, I., (1998)"Methods in Neural Modeling" MITP For neural prisms see: Cirrincione, G., Cirrinocione, M., & Van Huffel, S., (1999)"Neural Geometry for Constrained Optimization" (copy of the paper is on my website -- http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting/neuralprism.pdf ) and Hoppensteadt, F.C., (1997)"An Introduction to the Mathematics of Neurons 2nd Ed" Cambridge UP For solving a 3000 year old 'problem' see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/cracked.html ------------------ Chris Lofting websites: http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
