[Fis] Emotional sentience, Hemispheric Lateralization and Quantum Physics ~ oh my!

[Katherine Peil]

Hi Eric, Karl, et al,
Eric, I’ve always admired your work, and share your interest in state information as a bridge to social communication and cooperation theory. I will reiterate that it is the emotional state  - its embodied source, its underlying electrochemical signaling processes, its self-regulatory thermodynamics and functional enmeshment with genetic, epigenetic and immune regulation - that will build the strongest theoretical bridge to the social dynamics. This will also help launder some of the higher social theories of the lingering vestiges of Cartesian dualism and Western religious dogma and provide a much stronger grounding in biology and physics. I look forward to seeing your next offering, so be sure to send it to me directly if I’m not to be found here.

Karl, as always it’s a pleasure to venture into your land of numbers and sorting! It is indeed a uniquely inspiring realm in which to dwell, although I’m still a bit unclear about the meaning of the cycles in your model. To my mind, cycles connote time, oscillation, frequency and iterative maths – qualities that give rise to information in the subjective sense, perceptions of time at the very least. I’d love it if you could offer a simple clarification between the process of the cycles and the application of information as you define it. Also, when I try to incorporate your thinking into my own model, it clearly falls in the inner or quantum domain I called Domain 0. So I cannot help but chuckle upon hearing your confession about the quantum. There are plenty of intriguing works in quantum biology:  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0*2C32&q=quantum*biology*meta*analysis*2024&btnG=__;JSsrKys!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WiRRBfVxCnYB2xNnPhOuavoUUNpeACaXgGcr2FmT5uPRP-aeMCJQYrO9v8NNmtqw9U5bquZ5wZhew9N7sw$ 

But Karl, I’d also like to address your lament about miscommunication between both halves of the brain. I’d like to point you toward the work of Ian McGilchrest (The Master and his Emissary; The Matter with Things), who is perhaps the reigning expert in hemispheric lateralization. From his framework I would suggest that your arguments about number, ordering, language and “no quantum” all spring from a left-hemispheric mode of information processing (linear, linguistic, particular, external control oriented – the Emissary), and are rather lacking in the right (nonlinear, intuitive, global, and emotional – the Master). He suggests that path of Western science exhibits that same imbalance. I run into this a lot with my husband Stuart, but it never diminished the admiration or affection I feel for either of you.

With warmest wishes,
Kate Kauffman






On 11/22/24, 6:07 AM, "Fis" <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> wrote: Katherine Peil Kauffman

Send Fis mailing list submissions to
        fis at listas.unizar.es

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C63bd5e4fa1a0467d15b508dd0af6a2eb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638678776599835824%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fFDbQD4RVk9XsVcs2XFZ5rp%2BnVsDTdsqcPHngNwwDTA%3D&reserved=0<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        fis-request at listas.unizar.es

You can reach the person managing the list at
        fis-owner at listas.unizar.es

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 116, Issue 8 Emotions are not binary
      (Karl Javorszky)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:06:42 +0100
From: Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
To: goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 116, Issue 8 Emotions are not
        binary
Message-ID:
        <CA+nf4CX91MxLviqVub7UXkcGMpAnJhS=vDAGOoEcp26P_DK4NA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Quantum 2024 11 22

Dear Thomas,



Thank you for bringing up the subject of "quantum" as an idea and
procedure. Please allow me to comment from the viewpoint of a psychologist
(biologist) on the concept. First, let me show limits of practicability of
the idea. Then, we return to Wittgenstein and establish how the meaning of
a word is arrived at and how the logical truth is understood to mean the
congruence of a mental pattern (devised by us) with a numeric pattern (as
the gauge on which to measure whether we had reasoned correctly). The
constructive part of this essay proposes using numeric patterns as
blueprints of mental patterns, even if we may as of today not have produced
that mental pattern which fits smugly with a practical numeric pattern.



*1. Inapplicability of the concept quantum for solving my problem*

The problem FIS deals with centers around the concept "information". In
terms of background, some of the Learned Friends have been raised in the
context of biology while other Learned Friends had a stem education. If I
understand you right, quantum is an invention by the stem people, and you
propose to use the concept to come nearer to a satisfying general picture
of how Nature manages relationships among parts of wholes.

The idea that biologists should familiarize themselves with and use the
concept of quanta so that both sides of the old trivial-quadrivial conflict
possess a common intellectual unit, this suggestion is comparable to the
idea that biologists suggest to stem people to use the concept of the
mirror relation of lust and hangover because that perspective is really
useful in understanding the behavior of animals.

This is not to say that quantum as a concept would be wrong or false. It is
simply not applicable in biology. Not because of its peculiarities but
because of the generality of its generation.



Let me state the problem as biologists see it: we see that an animal lives.
We have no stem words to describe what we mean by the word "lives". So, we
have a state of the world that a picture that exists in my head can't be
described by me, because the mechanics of life have not yet been explicated
to me, so I can't build sentences to communicate about a clear and explicit
content of my head.



Both the pictures of the living animal, and of the lexicon are in my head.
I have an inner conflict, because one part of my head has no words to
describe what a different part of my head perceives. (It was hypothesized
that natives were helpless vis a vis the conquistadores, because in the
lexicon of the natives such a structure that swims on water and of which
people emerge, was not existing, so thinking broke down, confronted by
something that was impossible to exist.)



Quantum is understood to be a property of the things that are outside of my
head. Now we come to the conflict. Experience shows that it is in the best
case a symptomatic improvement if a person who is laboring with inner
conflicts, is offered a reinforcement that deals with the outside world.

It doesn't help me at all, with my problem of not finding the correct words
to describe biology, if more and more detailed yellow stickers are picked
onto diverse parts of the whole, of which the interaction of the parts I
have a problem with. In the elephant example, it is of no use to amass
measurements of trunk, feet, belly and ears, if I fail to build a general
picture of how these parts fit together.

This is the reason why this person is very reticent to embrace the idea of
quantum. From the outside, it is not clear whether quantum is today's stone
of wisdom, Phlogiston, ether, Wotan's odem or highly refined snake oil. The
concept of quantum asserts to depict relations among objects that are
outside of my head.



What I need is an explanation that relates to the inability of one part of
my head to describe intelligently that what a different part of my head
sees clearly. I have no problem with how things interact outside. I have a
problem with understanding myself, how come that I find no words for
something that I see to exist. I will overcome the limitations of my
vocabulary, not that of my faculties of observation. If I don?t understand
the general principle of the contraption, getting into more details is
usually only of limited value. We need to investigate how words are checked
for meaning something in a grammatically true fashion.



*2. How we check that our words refer to that concept which we intend to
refer to*

Wittgenstein would have been an adept of Shannon and his hardcore
followers, had he lived after Shannon. The idea of information processing
being *au fond* an identification of an element of *N* is included in
Wittgenstein?s reasoning about the correct grammar of using well-defined
words in a sentence that is interpersonally understandable.

Wittgenstein?s steps of reasoning go:

Word ? remove connotations ? arrive at denotation ? establish relations of
denotation of word to other denotations of words ? check if relations among
words agree to relations among other words that are definitely true (in
practice, use numbers as sources of correct relations) ? if the relations
among the words are in agreement with the relations that are known to be
true, the sentence is grammatically correct.

If we simplify our concepts into bundles/clusters of numeric relations (1)
and compare this pattern of relations to patterns of relations we find or
create by counting, then in case the comparison yields positive, the mental
concept is reasonable. (If it calculates, it may be something useful. If
the numbers do not add up, forget it, that won?t work in no case anyway.)
(1) My transaction today at the supermarket paying for groceries by card is
a bundle/cluster of numeric relations. This is one word of the sentence
describing me, the supermarket, the groceries and the bank. The words of
the sentence fit together, obeying a numeric pattern: the sentence is
grammatically correct. Every word of this sentence answers to the
requirements for that word and means exactly that what it is expected to
mean. (In this sense, the sentence contains no information, as nothing is
otherwise than expected.)



*3. Proposal: Turn the procedure on its head*

We check whether our ideas have merit by confronting them with the truths
the natural numbers contain in themselves. The natural numbers are the
roots and the stem of the system of true relations. From the simple come
the composite who begot the differences who begot the similarities and the
probabilities and the combinations and the certitude. Of that apple, which
later fell down, to Newton?s great delight, of certitude we homo sapiens
have created logic and numbers and relations.

Why don?t we just dig out the tree of relations, turn it over and give it a
good shakeup? The canopy of the tree of natural numbers is a habitat for
many numeric patterns. If we need a common, very versatile and small
building block, why not take such that grow in that tree, with which we
anyway compare all that we produce for checking whether it is grammatically
correct?

Wittgensteins direction: create coherent ideas. Check if the rules of the
coherence agree to rules of coherence which we know to be true.

Update 21st century: use the set of relation we know to be true and subject
them to axiomatic ongoing changes. In this way, anything that can happen in
an ordered world will appear in the produced patterns.

(If I produce ideas, I can check whether the structure of my ideas agrees
to structures that can be found among the structures that I have learnt to
be true. Now we change direction, take the rule book and mix all the rules.
We are interested in the resulting convolutum of rules. Which rules are
sticky with which other rules?)



*4. Are these quantum amounts?*

Doing an exercise *en vogue* in FIS, ordering any 12 books from
author-title into title-author and retour, one wonders what words are in
use for the different kinds of impacts, voids, speeds and holes and one
missing and one double of the romantic relations (called aforetimes
?cycles?) among books that share that they are *in transit together in one
closed sequence.*

One level further up, cycles running parallel have inevitably some
predictable patterns of coincidences. That such-and-such are regularly
together although they belong to different cycles is an *offset bondage*
that is not covered by the definition of simple romantic relations. That
the coincidence takes place is a predictor for many different, seemingly
temporally, materially and spatially distant occurrences. The knowledge
about *?? ? ??* taking place is equivalent with the expectations of how
many cycles are running, how many places are empty and what size the bump
each cycle carries on average. These are sets of *expectations *against
which the *observations *deviate, yielding the extent of *information. *



*To summarize:*

One way is to think something up and look whether the numbers confirm it.
The way proposed here, which technology of our age now permits, is to
filter out the most obvious numeric patterns the system produces if we make
it undergo perpetual changes. The bet is that the numeric patterns we
harvest will need only to find each a good name for, because the idea as
such is by definition sound.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20241122/e397f7ca/attachment-0001.html>