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

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Kate,



thank you for reading the text of my lamentations about the inflexibility
of the vocabulary (lexicon) to describe the proceedings one observes in
biology. It will be a day of deep satisfaction for both of us, the day when
you start giving feedback that you have understood the subject of the
lamentations, and the sales pitch that comes after the lamentation.

My text goes:

“look at poor me, I cannot construct, by the words that I have learnt using
that grammar what I have learnt, a picture to describe that what I see!”

The important sales drive comes after that:

“look here, (at proud me), this is what I have found. These here are 46.260
interconnectors among realizations of amount, time, distance,
predictability, cohesion, conservativism, opportunism, importance and
irrelevance.”. Here the salesman points to the heap of cycles that are a
protocol of every possible amount coming to every possible place – as long
as the system is ordered. Rotating ( ~ colloquial expression for subjecting
the etalon collection to 72 * 71 resorts, pretending that these are all but
maybe a few of the possible reorderings of the arguments of * a+ b = c, *below
the Eddington maximum) the logical expression *a+b=c *brings forth matches
between what is where and when and how predictably.

The customer will not be hooked by the hope that he may learn to use a
gadget that predicts when is where what how certainly, because gadgets are
nothing but gadgets and there are already too many of those. (Unless the
customer is interested in the mechanics of the ultimate Rubik’s cube
marrying the Mother of All Sudokus and begetting a
geometro-synchro-algometro gadget, for the pleasure of having a nice
Tinguely machine, constructed of natural numbers, next to his alarm clock.)

The customer needs an argument to see that he indeed does need the gadget.
One enters a sales seductive pitch, saying: “Say, don’t you check all the
day whether what you produce is fit for consumption by comparing it to some
descendants from the Tree of Natural Numbers?” Customer works in Science,
so what he does all day is to check whether his calculations of the day
pass through the general grammar control of being self-referentially true.
Whatever parts of whichever applied technique the customer wants to check
for feasibility, he will compute the idea. If the computations behind his
ideas yield that it is possible that the ideas are related in such a
fashion, then the customer is allowed to set an OK check, that he has
worked correctly. At the end of the day, be these bridges built, machines
assembled, meals cooked, wounds healed, there will be a cross-referencing
of key descriptors that comes to a result, which result is the basis for
that evening’s feeling well in respect of having done the day’s work. We do
a cross-referencing as humans as we ascertain ourselves of the correctness
of our work. In the case of STEM work, and the customer is on the STEM
side, the cross-referencing will most probably also have a form that has a
numeric expression. The sales pitch underlines that the plausibility result
of a piece of accounting done is that the two sides match, irrespective of
the business.

If you have not lost the customer at this point, you will be able to
present him the unique sales proposal. (There is so far nothing to alienate
the customer. He is a STEM mensh and he adds up his plans and checks if,
whether and how far his plans agree to the numbers that are sure to be
kosher.)

Here you might risk a fraternization by striking a personal note. Find
common memories of student days and say, why, would you not have wished to
have a catalog of correct answers for all the tests? If he nods, you almost
got the sale.

Repeat slowly with him that he checks the reality (reasonableness,
grammatical correctness, truth, etc.) of any mental product he produces by
referring to children, grandchildren, further descendants of the root of
all truths, *a+b=c. *That statement is at the root of the Tree of Natural
Numbers.

Now you offer him a gadget which delivers all the correct answers to all
questions he can ever pose in the context of a whole that is made up of
diverse parts, that can be differently similar and diverse among each other
and count differently many. (Mention the Eddington limit and that we can
only regard systems that are ordered. Biology is ordered to the maximum
extent possible, and trees do not grow to the sky, so the requirement of a
closed collection is also maintained.)

You give the customer a Fortune’s sack full of relations that are much
better than the quantum concept he uses today. Our basic units are not
man-made but are a gift of Nature. Anything that is assembled is included
in the possibilities of fitting *j* pieces of the Cycles Library together.

As an additional extra bonus, the customer can have the numeric values of
the relations of any two of the basic pieces (of which there are in our
version 46.260) delivered together with the logical values of which variant
of the general change are these connection values the most valid/acute. The
customer does not have to invent – based on observations – new or improved
interconnectors between his concepts, because the natural numbers have
given us the keys for the interconnections that can be realized, actually,
numerically be the case in physical reality. The keys are in the fine print
of the user’s manual about how to use natural numbers. One creates all
cycles by rotating the assembly and then for each reorder redistributes the
right side of *a+b=c *among the participants symbolized by *a, b*, by
building pairs of *a, b *and crediting the cycle with that part of *c *that
was moved by the cycle. Within cycles, one breaks down the amount the cycle
has been credited with, to each individual member of the cycle, as an
average value (one may want to redistribute based on headcount of members
or on distance run by the cycle). This is a measurement unit that connects
amounts, their differences and similarities, distances and discrete units
(member head count). Not only is this unit more versatile than the current
quantum concept, but it is made by Nature and not by honorable humans
Helmholtz and Planck.

The extra bonus are the *liaison values *that connect parts that belong
together. By the technique outlined above, one arrives at values of the
assembly that are in sum *2(a+b). *The addition happens at an inner level
that is not strikingly obvious at first.

To make the semantic (romantic) relations obvious that bring several
members of an assembly into lien type bondage relations, the customer has
only to take 12 of his books and reorder them on his table from
author-title into title-author and retour. The insight is located exactly
near the *pons *between and below the two hemispheres. The fundamentals of
the insight deal with brain regions that the customer has not trained in a
formal educative context since early childhood. As Kate charmingly writes,
it is pleasurable for her to see me engaged in my deep hobby of sorting and
ordering. It is encouraging for me that Kate registers what the song and
dance at this festival is about. It is with a mixed pleasure that I see a
group in which someone who raves about sorting counts as a charming
outsider. This is progress insofar as the group does not decide that
sorting is blasphemous. The group understands that sorting is something
that can be done, and is obviously done, by at least one, but to what end
and why and who benefits of this, is in the eyes of the group as of yet not
really clear.

Well, we are in a group that deals with information theory as applied to
biology. Of the two fields where this can be studied in an abstract form,
memory and genetic, we traditionally deal with genetic, as the labor people
give us facts, while the memory people give only hypotheses. So, it is
genetic. The DNA is a sequence. If one wants to understand sequences one
cannot avoid sorting and ordering.

The real question is how on Earth in a group that tries to understand
information theory as applied in biology, someone who cries *sequences! *where
others cry *wolf!* can be an outlier. Everyone should be speaking about
sequences and sorting in the present excellent assembly of Learned Friends.



To cut it short:

The 46.260 elementary interconnectors are that collection which people
refer to as they use the word “quantum”.

To give an example: There are some among the 46.260 that are extremely
useful. It is a numeric pattern in reorder* 17-(a+b), a+b** ↔ 3b-2a,
3a-2b *that
will serve as a *metronome* cycle, being 129 members long, together with
its inside-outside half-twin *a+b, 17-(a+b)** ↔ 3b-2a, 3a-2b *that will
serve as the *folding *cycle, being 128 members long. The labor people need
to do less experiments if we tell them that this is what they should look
for.

The invention is to assemble a parallel to the perspective we traditionally
use to look at the world. The duality is everywhere. We shall deal with the
translation between how many, how diverse, how similar (the Marijuán
constants) later. Presently, we discuss a much simpler realization of the
basic duality, namely that what we count in units of distance (each of the
units is equal) vs. what we call amount, here at first used as an
identifying symbol, giving the element its place among its peers. To the
distance facts (in uniform units) come the logical flags (of which reorder
the interconnector is by natural descendance a part of), and now, as an
extra bonus the material summands (the lien values that connect two
members). And, as an ultra extra bonus, the members of the interconnectors
are sequentially numbered among each other, allowing manifold offset
variants of the same interconnectors being at work.

As we sort, we assign place attributes to elements. Among the place
attributes are also logical attributes and material values. We know that
the cookbook is among the first in author-title but among the last in
title-author. This variant (author / title) of order connects several of
the books into distinct, individual cycles. If we had year-of-publication
and no-of-pages as order descriptors too, the cookbook could have come to
wildly different places. There are variants of logical order descriptors
and each of them imposes its own pairs of amount / place expectations. (All
that within a closed, ordered assembly, like biology.)



To close, a sales point that may interest the customer: tell him he can be
famous. Tell the customer that the *logical archetypes *are not catalogized
yet. It is like fishing in a bathtub. He will be able to describe a
chemical element by naming the specific of the clusters/bundles of cycles
that are unavoidably created by the very fact of rotating *2(a+b). *Sort,
order and filter the 46.260. Find those that can and that can not coexist.
Build types. The archetypes are those patterns that appear and remain
bumped together as the assembly is undergoing perpetual changes. There can
be no more than 129 of such. Filter out the most resilient.

PS: Zaragoza server discourages pictures in these letters. To see how two
different cycles are used to define One Unit of Information, please see the
illustration in

(PDF) Liaisons Among Symbols
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385499143_Liaisons_Among_Symbols__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Sj1nm_SHqWdYJ8aUNgurup7XDlU-bXlULwsdN82LVA3lQykDVbgsc9j9oKJTbrS1hprCu9NrtkqrEFoW-2gLJjeQa4E$ >

Thanks again for your interest.

Karl

Am Fr., 22. Nov. 2024 um 19:28 Uhr schrieb Katherine Peil <
ktpeil at outlook.com>:

> 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!Sj1nm_SHqWdYJ8aUNgurup7XDlU-bXlULwsdN82LVA3lQykDVbgsc9j9oKJTbrS1hprCu9NrtkqrEFoW-2gL-sKm2cw$ 
> <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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20241125/5b714125/attachment-0001.html>