“Imaging the Conscience”

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

As stated before in a previous article (The Praxis
http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/ )

the methods of fMRI, MEG (magnetoencephalogram), and Cortical Evoked Potentials, can be used to image and detect mental events, and the duration of the recognition response and where those are being processed, often in more than one place. For instance, the introspection center has been localized since about 2001 in the studies by Gusnard, et.al, to an area in the medial prefrontal cortex, and this area is also implicated in morals awareness, self-referential expression, and related tasks.
Gusnard, DA, et. al. “Medial prefrontal cortx and self-referential mental activity: relation to a default mode of brain function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 98: 4259-64, 2001. Other studies have shown similar findings.

It is this examination of self, comparing our moral sense, or conscience which is related to our conscious awareness of whether or not we are behaving according to our society’s standards of moral and appropriate behaviors. When the frontal lobes are damaged, we see, clinically, very clearly that such appropriate social behaviors fail. the person becomes immoral, lacks a sense of cleanliness, or dressing properly and simply often does not even see it. Nor are they necessarily aware that they or others are behaving properly, either. Serious damage to the frontal lobes has shown this also in stroke patients, but is more often found in traumatic injuries to the brain, which are more globally damaging to the frontal lobes.

Under these circumstances, with these findings and observation, we can therefore pretty well localize the conscience function and structures to the frontal lobes. The brain neurophysiological dictum, that function follows structure and that therefore there can be no function without intact structure must be invoked. This Structure/Function relationship is key to any real understanding of the various functions of brain, not only speech, movement, sensation, but the higher functions of the cortex, such as language, music playing and appreciation, logical thinking, spatial tasks, and many other high level functions such as moral/social judgements, which subsume the conscience.

Therefore, if we are to study the conscience and inbuilt moral system, we must specifically invoke tasks in the individual which involve perceptions and recognition of moral/immoral actions, such as gift giving, or stealing, such as helping person, or harming them, and so forth. In this way, invoking these specific tasks through images of such activities, which are clearly and easily identified by the subject, the moral sense can be activated in the frontal lobes and then studied using normals. In this way, the cortical evoked response can be detected upon seeing a grossly immoral act, such as hitting a person without provocation, such as a man striking an elderly woman, or taking her purse away from her (stealing), and so forth. And in the same way, helping another person, or giving someone food, or another helpful act, such as an umbrella during a rainstorm, can clearly be perceived by most normals as beneficial and helpful While in other case, harming and hurting the individuals also be portrayed. Those which give in most subjects the highest definite, detectable response can be found by trial and error. And can be interposed with images of relatively neutral moral sights to act as controls. The contrast among these can then be studied on a fMRI system to see what frontal areas light up, compared to rest, as well as studied by a clase following MEG of the same sequence of images to see the recognition responses of the P-300, the CEP associated neurophysiogical event. In this way, the conscience and its activations in the frontal lobes can be detailedly studied by two corresponding and clear detection and recording systems. The conscience at work can thus be imaged. This is more of the fuller potential of combined fMRIO and MEG studies being done together, which synergistically enable more to be found, than either alone. And the findings of the one will not only compare, but show and confirm the reality of the conscience at work by the second.

The implications of these findings will be, clinically and legally, extremely important. Because where such activity is absent, it will indicate the person cannot perceive, that is, recognize moral or immoral activity. But where there is a detectable response, it can be and will be seen, recognized, and reported by the subject. With careful presentation of known stimuli, various kinds of moral recognitions or their absence can be detected and proven to a high degree of being present, or not. This will give a very good tool for objectively recognizing those who are unable to perceive immoral acts by themselves, that is functional sociopaths, and also detail using the MRI if there is structural damage there or not. This will differentiate necessarily between those who are brain damaged, versus those who are by experience and lack of moral training, more likely to respond to therapy, or not. Clearly, those lacking speech cortex will have disabilities in speech, while those whose area are intact, are far more likely to possess absence of normal speech due to training and socially related developmental problems. This kind of differentiation is critical to prognosis and response to treatments as well.

it will also allow better treatment of and the ability to detect any improvements or not as a result of those training sessions, which can also be combined with P-300 measures to see if the training is working. This would be a lot less expensive and easier method to use in operant conditioning and training methods. fMRI/MEG combination examinations can then be used in tandem to confirm improvements and actually measure the improvements in many cases. and no longer will a judge need to rely upon psychiatric, or his own impressions, both highly subjective and fraught with many examples of mistaken decisions, often with terrible or even lethal outcomes, to decide if a patient/prisoner is truly better enough to be released, versus those who are only good at acting. The P-300 cannot be faked. It can be interrupted and then lied about, but the recognition in such persons is almost always there, or not, and that cannot be faked, though its reporting by the subject can be. These are then more reliable and objective ways of studying, recognizing and treating such problems in conscience related brain/moral disorders.

The consequences of such findings and their utility can be extended to many areas. At age 14, many children begin to be aware of these moral and social duties, when self-awareness undergoes a marked improvement at that time. Children who do not have these adaptations and are developmentally delayed can get interventions before the personality becomes too stable and hard wired to allow improvement, and thus treat a good many developmentally and socially acquired sociopathies, and lack of insight into how they are mistreating others and how their perceptions are flawed, too.

Narcissists and spoiled children can also be detected before they get too old and if detected as young enough children, can be treated before this personality problem becomes too serious and stable to be easily corrected. Across the board, adults who are narcissistic and sociopathic are thus closely related by this lack of moral perceptions and lack of insight into their own actions and how those affect others, and damage their relationships with society and other persons, occasionally permanently. And those can be detected also by abnormalities in responses to testing. So it will permit therefore earlier detection and treatment, which often results in substantial cures if not improvements. The same can be used to ID those with encephalitis, brain trauma, stroke and other conditions to identify early and perhaps intervene to correct/improve such acquired problems, too.

In a neuroscientific, psychological sense, these studies will confirm what has been known for some time, that the conscience as an active function of the frontal lobes in most person is real and will allow its detection and study, to further enlighten us about how the brain works. By extending this model to the study of creativity, more can be learned, because the comparison process model also states that creativity is created, and is another form of recognition coming from the comparison process. In time, the activity of the comparitor in the cortical cell columns can also be identified and then studied as to how it works, providing the necessary physical detection to support the comparison process model and comparison methods which it both detects, creates and uses, actively.

The study of introspection can also be undertaken to examine the finer details of it, and thus learn more about our self-awareness. It can find the commonalities of human thought which we all share and thus can enlighten us more about how the higher level cortical functions of abstractions and abstracting work, as well, under the broader background of the comparison processing working in the cortical cell columns. And perhaps in time, begin the study of individual cortical cell columns and how they interact with others in processing information of all kinds. using the Point magnetic brain stimulater, as previously described in the “Praxis”, of a great deal higher resolution and specific information will also be found. because it will allow the conscience to be shut down, with repeated stimulation, not only to prove the conscience exists, but to interrupt the function of it, as well, thus providing a third and ever more convincing set of objective data showing that introspection, and moral awareness do indeed exist within a structural foundation in the brain. That the conscience and many elemnts of our mind are not figments of our mind, but in fact, thinking about thinking, the primary characteristic of recursivity, self-referentiality, repetitive and above all, universal nature of comparison process words and brain activities, generally.

Beyond the Absolute: Limits to Knowledge

Beyond the Absolute: Limits to Knowledge

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” From “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare

“A society which cannot escape from its current abstractions is doomed to stagnation after a limited period of growth.”
—Alfred Whitehead

“Almost anything which jogs us out of our current abstractions is a good thing.”
—Alfred Whitehead, co-author of “The Principia Mathematica”

“I hold that a little rebellion now and then to be a good thing.”
—President Thomas Jefferson

Contents:
1. No absolutes in events in existence, no absolute space or time, no infinities, certainties, perfections or other absolutes.
2. No complete models, astronomical models as solid evidence; Incomplete models of physics
3. Sphericity of the earth shown by imposing flat, 2-D surveying street grids
4. Exponential barrier of particle physics now reached, expon bars of velocity of light (cee) and absolute zero, incompleteness of human knowledge.
5. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (AKA Gödel’s Proof), empirical evidence confirming the theorem.
6. The Structure/Function approach to knowledge’ structure but not function, or the converse method.
7. Structure/function incompleteness of the Human Genome Project showing power of the S/F method; A number of practical ways to find the missing functions of known genes; comparing normal gene to abnormal gene gives solutions to the problem.
8. S/F problem of missing information in Gödel’s Theorem.
9. Examples of Incompleteness of math/logic
10. Exponential barriers, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as a form of ExponBar;
11. Comparison Process can go beyond limits of math/logic and related forms: Examples of the Taxonomies of living species; medical conditions also based upon comparison observations, history, examination, differential diagnoses and treatment plans, beyond mathematics: Plate tectonics and languages and taxonomies of languages and their relationships; etc.
12. Non-logical systems descriptions: emotions, delusions, rationalizations, the Mythos of gods/goddesses, animistic beliefs;
13. Source of both logic and the illogical, of math and emotions, the comparison process.
14. The one way street. Language can express all math, but math cannot express very much of language in exact, meaningful symbology. The extreme limits of math: poetry, literature, religious statements; language and linguistics. Gödel’s proof gives no clues about what specifically those incompletenesses are, where located, or their natures.
15. The alinearity of complex systems; the epistemological shift to complex systems using the comparison process.                                                                                                              15a. The ignoratio ignorationis problem and related.
16. The Exclusion Principle and the origin and limits of the negative; the negative as the source of incompleteness” Godel not necessarily applicable to logics of exclusion.
17. Examples of implicit and explicit(the global negative) exclusions
18. Many examples of incompleteness of knowledge.
19. The value of the structure/function approach to incomplete knowledge.
20. The primacy of observational/visual organized systems
21. Approximations and series’ approximation methods. Recursivity evidences.
22. The kinds of ignorances as causes of incompleteness and limits to knowledge.

23. Exclusion principle and the internal consistencies of biological systems not logical/mathematical; ideas excluding other ideas, implicitly or explicitly; idealism as a very large part of the problem of incompleteness.
24. Exponential growth of the sciences and knowledge still largely incomplete despite this, as an example of how much humans do NOT know, yet.
25. Incompleteness of the general categories, the ontologically implicit incompleteness of categories, etc.
26. Human brain outputs do NOT necessarily correspond to events in existence to any considerable degree. Models of events are not the events outside of the brain. The fatal flaw of idealisms. Historical suppressions of empirical investigation by idealisms.
27. General ignoring of most all data on a daily basis.
28 Multi-tasking methods to improve how we deal with events in existence; escaping limits by these methods. The simultaneity of 2-3 brain operations method.
28. Categories and hierarchies. The comparison process creates those and allows us to navigate up and down them, by reading them. Math cannot follow, it can mostly work inside one category, but not, as can language, move up or down. It can’t scale like language/comparison processes can.

1. Previously the idea that there is no absolute space and time has been discussed. That there is probably no such events in existence as perfection, infinity or absolutes, has also been shown to be the case by trying to describe/measure perfection and showing that it cannot, like infinity, be shown to exist. In fact, most anything which we measure does not have a finite number to describe it. Most all empirical lengths are very likely irrational, because there is not a final digit. And any attempt to find that last digit is empirically as well as theoretically very likely an impossible task, because we go up the exponential barrier, that greased slide of increasing slope and height, until we run out of energy, time and money, effectively. Also called the law of diminishing returns. These are both empirical and theoretical limits. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where the spin and location of the electron cannot both be accurately determined is the case. But is it not true, that we cannot determine EITHER the position or the spin to a final digit of certainty?

In the case of the orbits of the planets, Kuhn’s brilliant analysis in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” showed that the circular orbits of Ptolemy were not complete by comparing the data to perfect circles, and had to be “adjusted” by using smaller circles called epicycles. This approximated the later elliptical orbits. Copernicus showed that a simpler system put the planets in orbits, circular, around the sun. Kepler was not convinced and when he finally got Tycho Brahe’s data, and compared the figures with what Mars’ orbit was, he showed that an ellipse was the orbit of the planets, but only just. Because as we know now the orbits, by comparison with the data, are in 3-D and cannot be elliptical, either. And the orbit of Mercury also rosettes around the sun, in both space and altered time due to relativistic influences. So, currently we use elements of orbits, which Kuhn also addressed. But these are only good for 50K-100K years of theoretical accuracy, and then become useless. Of course, this 50-100K estimate has NOT been checked & cannot be at this time. No one has actually measured them. Thus even there we find a limit to measurement.

There is the finding that trans-Neptune plutoids, bodies, which are from a few kilometers to a few 1000′s kms. in size and mostly watery, rocky metallic composition like Pluto and Charon, move in highly eccentric orbits quite out of the plane of the ecliptic and some with orbits as long as 1000′s of years. Because they were so distant and so far out of the ecliptic, they were missed until astronomers could spend weeks long viewing times, using CCD’s for higher light gathering power, and the money and time to do the searching. Now they number in the scores, and probably in the 1000′s to say the least. Again, limits to knowledge, any new knowledge. Astronomy is Still incomplete.

2. Given the new ideas and findings in physics, not only was Aristoteles’ knowledge incomplete, but so was Galileo’s and as Einstein and quantum mechanics showed so was classical physics. Relativity does not seem to necessarily apply on the quantum level, because it’s a deterministic theory, not a probabilistic and stochastic one, like quantum mechanics, which so far has been shown to be the case whenever it can be tested. Sadly, QM is so complex and many of the calculations are impossible to solve using even today’s advanced supercomputers. Finding answers using the QM wave functions is simply & often impractical and unhelpful. So in a very real sense, those are real, palpable and important limits to the usage of QM, as valuable and correct as it has been shown to be.

3. In each case we have the same process. From the apparent flatness of the earth being shown to be a special case where the circularity, spheroidal shape of the earth gave the illusion of flatness. And this could have been dispelled 1000′s of years ago, simply by creating on the earths surface a planar grid pattern and then seeing that regular, clear error because the north going lines on a planar grid will diverge too much on either side of the grid, if it’s extended too far east and west. Longitudinal lines on a sphere tend towards the north or south pole, and meet, whereas on a 2-D grid plane, they do NOT meet. The planar grid does NOT compare well with the spheroidal model.

And this also applies to the space-time geometry of the universe. Thought to be 3-D, it’s in fact not Euclidean, not linear at all. There is also a divergence when 3-D is compared to the actual universe. By comparison, the model does not fit. None of these models fits completely, either.

4. When the Higgs boson was finally believed to be found, but NOT confirmed by at least two other sites/teams, because it was so expensive to do so, it marked the point, again, it should be said, that the exponential barrier was being climbed, until it was so expensive to do, it’s not likely to be tested that way again. Again, limits to knowledge using standard, scientific measuring methods, which have been shown time and again to be comparison process and methods.

But the point is this, using description and the mathematical method of description, measurement, we will most always be climbing the Expon Bar, eventually, no matter what we do. We cannot find perfection nor infinity, which have no reality. There is not absolute space nor time. We cannot reach the light barrier of Cee using normal acceleration. At the other end of the speeds of particles, viz. ultra low temperatures, we cannot reach absolute zero, where the cost of reaching it becomes greater and greater with each approaching millidegree or even more so a microdegree. There is a limit to our human knowledge, both Empirically and scientifically, as well as theoretically, mathematically and logically. The exponential barriers of measurement show us the physical reality of this limit, as does a special case of that barrier, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So what is going on here? If both description and measurement have such limits, then most all knowledge, either theoretical(mathematics and logics) and empirically obtained is unlikely to be complete, necessarily. There is NOT absolute knowledge, either theoretically or empirically. NO verbal descriptions nor intensely worked out, pursued and highly accurate measurements can give us this. There is a natural limit to most all our knowledge, at least in a practical sense, which we cannot at this time easily overcome.

5. Let us take this point further. Godel’s Proof showed logically that and necessarily all such logical, recursive systems were incomplete. Comparing this to the current methods of the sciences and most all measurement, indicates that the ExponBar may be a physically testable form of the same thing. Thus not only is mathematics and logic incomplete, but using the Comparison processes, which create description and measurements, most all such theories cannot either be complete. There is most always something which is going to be left out. We cannot attain absolute, final, logically consistent systems, and when we try to measure and describe events in existence using such systems, there is also the same outcome. Most All of our models are therefore incomplete. The ExponBar is a physical measurement showing the reality of the limits of most all methods using the comparison process, which are provably as recursive in an empirical way as are Godel’s abstractions.

6. Using the structuralist approach of the Structure —-> Function model (S/F), a lot more becomes clear. We knew from Einstein that E=MCsquared. But there was no real way to prove that, either. We had the Function, above, but not how to do it, the S. That is, the theoretical knowledge, but not any practical way of doing it. Just like Cristaforo Colon knew that the earth was round, he had to show it was so, as he partly showed by sailing west and then Magellan and Drake showed further in making a complete circumnavigation of the earth. So with the finding of nuclear fission of uranium yielding a chain reaction and energy, and then nuclear fusion doing the same, the left side of the S/F relationship was discovered. This model fits with most all discoveries and their subsequent explanations, although it doesn’t necessarily tell us what’s going on, specifically. It DOES show the limits of knowledge, the incompleteness, which is the point.

6. Human knowledge is incomplete. We often see the S/F relationship, one side or the other. We have the structures, that is the superconductor(SC), but we don’t know how it works, the theoretical. The SC’s were found at low temps, but no one knew how those worked, until it was found later and got a Nobel Prize. Those models were still incomplete because no one knew why or how the superconductivity phenomenon was gained or lost due to temperature rise and fall, either. And then the higher temp SC’s were found which astonished everyone again. Recently some major progress in understanding those has been found. And yet again, they can create an understanding of how the High Temp SC ( HTSC) worked, but they can’t easily make more SC’s which work at higher temps, because again, the “S” side of the relationship is not fully understood. So here we have with superconductivity research and findings the incompleteness of scientific knowledge coming out not once, but THREE times more, easily understood with the S/F model!!

7. There has been a serious problem with getting useful information out of the Human Genome Project. This has resulted from, very clearly, having the Structure of the genes, but not the functions. There is nothing in gene which necessarily states or ID’s what it does, specifically. So while we have almost all the human genes, we do NOT know what a large majority of them do. This is why the Genome has not delivered on its promise, very clearly highlighted by the Structure/Function method.

Essentially, we need to understand the comparison process and how it’s used. For this begin at the introduction to the comparison process, part 1.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/

Scroll down about 60% of the slide bar to find:
“Any kind of error, be it a genetic error creating a disorder, or other conditions, creates a new opportunity to compare that genetic disorder to the normal. “

This is the solution to the entire problem, in fact. If we think about it. Those who are not creative won’t see it. Those who are, well, they will create these innovations.

Create a new, synthetic allele of the gene whose function is not known. See what it does to the cells in a human cell culture. Insert it into a mouse and see what it does to the mouse genome. Does the mouse die, or does it have a serious, observable or metabolic problem? Using a chimp would be even better, though.

Compare the known human genes whose functions are well known, and the classes of genes to which they belong, be it structural, enzymes, polypeptides, regulatory, and so forth. Build up a database of what those genes’ characteristics are in each category, then begin to compare the unknown genes’ functions and find the similarities. Once those are known, then a lot more can be found.

This will require a big database, and will allow computer’s early AI to recognize similarities among the genetic DNA base code sequences and codons to make identification of the gene’s functions easier. And computers can do the job of comparison of gene functions a LOT faster than can humans, and might often find whole series of base pairs and codons strings, which are very similar to other genes, which functions we do not know. And it might even show that enzymes are created from other enzymes, simply by using chunks of DNA to become incorporated into new enzymes with new functions, too. Sort of a higher level genetics, which allows play around with the genes to create solutions to real problems. Sort of an epigenetic system, too.

Lastly, but by no means all of the methods which can be created by the comparison process, DNA hybridization. This was how the Myostatin gene was found in other species than mice, the primary species where it was ID’d. Simply take the unknown human gene, and use DNA hybridization to find it’s chromosomal location in mice, rats, chimps, and other species whose genomes are fairly well worked out. If it compares to one of those which is known, then we can surely tell a great deal more about what it does.

All of this by the method of comparison, you see. Next compare the effects of new, synthetic alleles in unknown genes to what happens to cell cultures and observable effects in functioning animals, too. There are an indefinitely large number of comparison methods capable of creating solutions to the structure/function problem now rife with the human genome.

8. And now we see the Godel’s incompleteness theorem, this important point. We have the right sided Function, but not the left sided S, Structure, which confirms it, do we not? Or do we? The huge problem with Godel was that he stated that math/logic of a recursive type was incomplete, but few have Yet given any real evidence which is convincing of that, either. Nor did the proof state WHERE and WHAT to look at or for or how to find that missing knowledge. How is this any different from E=MCsqu.? We knew it was likely to be the case, but it took until mid 1940′s before Einstein’s theory was found to be correct, too. Again, the F but not the S.

9. What then is likely shown here are some limits to math and logic, what they cannot do and are therefore incomplete about, thus beginning to complete the S/F relationship which Godel created by now providing some empirical, measurable evidence of the limits to logic/math using the COMP tool. And why moving on to a complex systems approach is both becoming successful, practical and necessary to further human understanding. That is, getting away from linear methods, to finding more of those which go beyond the absolutes of linear, mathematical thinking.

We know that our models of the solar system have been incomplete by historical evidences from Kuhn’s “The Structure…”. Here is yet more evidence of it. In the same way, math/logic and other linear methods cannot describe/understand complex systems, nor the human emotions, nor a good many other events in existence. The Comparison process is a way/tool/method to significantly advance the search to reduce those ignorances.

10. Expon barriers are likely measurable, empirical tests of the universality of these limits to current human, scientific knowledge. As stated before the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is very likely yet another form, and element of the category of the exponential barriers to complete knowledge. They are likely real and solid evidence that most all human knowledge, in some way or another, or in many ways, is incomplete. That last digit of most all events cannot ever be found no matter what we measure, nor theoretically and practically, we can’t measure it, either. Is this not a union of theory and facts based upon empirically testable events? When we exhaustively compare measurement and theory, we find these ExponBars. The Comparison Process describes measures and tests events in existence by comparing events to one another.

11. Can the COMP go beyond the limits of logic and mathematics, the latter of which cannot describe verbal concepts very well, but which math itself CAN be described by words, as well as logic? It’s likely possible. Using the descriptions of words of living systems and their relationships, something which math cannot do, for instance, in the medical history and physical exam plus the differential diagnoses and testing/treatment protocols; in plate tectonics; in descriptions of psychiatric states, (the DSM series); in descriptions of the relationships of languages to each other, the language diagrams, the entire virtually totally verbal taxonomy of all known, millions of species, etc. These suggest an approach which is superior to mathematics, that is, uses verbal descriptions to go where mathematics cannot go. The existence of the above may indeed allow us to go where mathematics cannot dsecribe as it has provably done so. These may well be solid evidences that, yet again, structures have their limits and capabilities, and of these, Godel’s proof is a part of that. Most all of our models are incomplete.

Using the body of knowledge of the “Tree of Life”, the connections among most all of the species to one another organized in hierarchical form, comprising what is called the Taxonomies of the species. This is based upon the relationships created by OBserving living species and comparing them to the others. It’s not based upon logic, nor upon mathematics, unless it be measuring, which is very limited, and for that alone it’s subjected to Godel’s limits, but not necessarily other descriptions. Therefore complex systems understanding might well lie outside of the mathematics which cannot solve the N-body problem, but which verbal descriptions using the comparison process have and can describe, but which are largely forbidden to mathematics. This shows yet again, empirical evidence for the incompleteness theorem of Godel. Or as Stanislas Ulam, the father of complex systems investigation, once stated Mathematics must become far more developed to be useful in understanding and describing complex systems.

12. Emotional systems are irrational. The comparison process shows how those arise, the delusions, the not logical rationalizations, excuses and violations of the rules of logic, including the Mythos, by which our ancestors used to explain so much of their world using gods, goddesses and animistic beliefs, and so forth. Therefore to the extent the COMP describes them, it lies outside of logic, which the emotions are definitely. Thus emotions and the ability to describe them is a not-logical description which can act outside of formal math/verbal logics, by the very nature of its descriptive existence. The limited linearity of systems can be shown logically, but necessarily incompletely. Those systems which are complex, are necessarily not completely logical and Godel’s proof does not necessarily apply, as mathematics and logic do not apply. Although, linear systems may approximate some aspects of complex systems.

13. The COMP shows itself as both the origin of logic, both mathematical and verbal logics, as well as the delusional, irrational beliefs, and the mythos of earlier religious explanations, and superstitions as well. Thus from it arises both the logical and the irrational, reason and the emotions, no mean achievement, either, for the comparison process model.

Clearly, quite something else is going on, which is outside of logical, formally logical, mathematical systems. This then shows the limits of logic and mathematics, can be breached and overcome by the comparison process in actual, empirical fact. The comparison process can create mathematics, and it can create logics, but it’s not necessarily subject to them, either, or to Godel’s proof.

14. To be more precise, language and words can express all mathematical statements. But mathematical symbology cannot express very much of verbal descriptions. Viz. these examples prove the case. It goes the one way, words speaking math, but not back again, math being largely UNable to describe language of most all types.

“How shall I compare thee to a summers day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate…” –Shakespeare.

“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” –Beatitudes.

“When I was 16, my parents didn’t know very much. When I got to be 25, I was surprised to see how much they’d learned.” –Mark Twain.

Shall we then expect mathematics to explain a great deal more of what is going on with these rather serious limits? Especially linguistics and the unlimited hierarchies of the languages and living systems? Can it describe the reductionist model, going from particles, protons and electrons, up to atoms and isotopes, and then onto molecules, and thence to organic chemistry, thence biochemistry and metabolism. Thence up to the living cell, the collections of cells called colonial forms, then multicellarity, etc., until we finally come to the human brain, and the cortical cell columns, from which the mental functions arise, creating the mind and consciousness? It cannot. This will be dealt with later, to explain the limits of linear mathematics and logics being unable to comprehend or model those systems.

There is no necessity that by observing events, that Godel’s proof can be tested, either. Observations of themselves do not necessarily show that Godel’s proof, which confined itself to human mental functions/processes of the mathematical and logic type, do not necessarily apply, because those observations ARE not linear, and are capable of describing complex systems, not describable by math. A further problem with Godel’s incompleteness theorem is that it gives NO clues as to what has been left out, that is, the specifics of what those omissions creating the incompleteness are. How are we to know where to look? This article is an attempt to begin that discovery of the omissions of knowledge, that incompleteness and its nature and its types within formal systems. An attempt to complete some of the structure/function relationship of Gödel’s Proof.

Simply using mathematical symbology, state the Beatitudes or one of Shakespeare’s more famous sonnets, “Thou art more beautiful than a summer’s rose…” clearly, not logical, not mathematics, but still in an emotional, mental way, comprehensible to most normal persons. Godel’s proof does not necessarily then apply to comparison process functions and descriptions which CAN in part describe such complex systems, which math and logic cannot describe, that is specifically, language with emotional and complex system content. This might well explain why complex system methods are being more and more widely used and complex system approaches are going well beyond what can be achieved with the linear, N= 2, logical, mathematical approaches. Math can approach in some cases, by approximations, and mathematical series, just as the circular orbits when modified by epicycles approached the elliptical model of Kepler. But it cannot pass over that abyss, and solve the N body problem, either.

15. For complex systems, A doesn’t always yield B. A can yield B, C, d’, phi, Xi prime and a lot of other outcomes, very similarly to the dopamine receptors, which have about 10 distinctive receptor types/functions, thus showing once again, that Godel does not necessarily apply to such complex systems. Their logic, if anything exists, more likely their organizations, their structure/functions relationship are NOT logical, but complex interactions and relationships, in fact, which can be understood in part by complex system thinking, that is, more like the comparison processes of observations.

To use a most simple and day to day event to demonstrate this complex system characteristic, suppose we walk down the street and say hello to the first person who comes by. They may say hello, but others can say, allo, or Buenas Dias, or nothing at all, to “How ya doin?”, and a virtually unlimited number of responses, in one or unlimited numbers of languages. They are are not predictable, but they ARE not linear, and instead complex systems, where there are huge number of interactive factors. Simple observation allows us to see that fact. It’s not logical, but it is organized, and the frequency of the responses can be given a probability by observing these systems working. Again, comparison process observations and methods can allow us to get information about not logical, not mathematical events and learn a LOT more about how they work.

15a. The ignoratio ignorationis problem is that of not knowing that one does not know. Ignorance of most events, concepts and mental training is a real problem. For instance, if a physician doesn’t know of a medical condition, how can he possibly make a diagnosis of it, and will miss it to the grief and too often death of his patient. Again, the cluelessness. If a person doesn’t know of the major logical fallacies, how can he avoid committing them? Overall, a good education will largely remove a good deal of this ignorance, and although it’s impossible to know everything, if one is trained broadly, generally and well, most of those kinds of problems will not occur, and the person, being well trained, will be well of aware of his limitations and most of the time be seeking to know those limits, and exceed them.

This is also a plea for far, far better education in the major nations, esp. in North America. Because not only is knowledge good because it creates wisdom, but also because it gives the comparitors in the human cortex more to work with to compare against all else. Knowledge is the deepest resource of the mind, and has been shown before, the more there is to compare, the more comparisons can be made which are useful and fruitful. And then because there is more found by those comparisons, then more can be compared against the newer knowledge and the comparison system exponentiates.

It’s simply too bad that in the USA so few have any real understanding or training in the sciences, because this is the most useful, reliable, practical and valuable knowledge known. Yet only about 5% of the US student graduate with any real understanding of their now 99% technological culture, which, with increasing computerization everywhere, only will continue to become ever more so. This is a great tragedy, because in the Eurasian nations, a 50/50 mix of math-science/humanities is required for graduation in most cases of secondary education and university degrees. It means that Eurasian graduates will simply run all over most all Americans. And that means in the long run, the US education system has simply failed to compete to the point where it must fail, weakening the entire nation vis a vis our Eurasian competitors.

Another problem is those who insist upon linear concepts and methods. They state dualities exist, without realizing the above logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. “There are always two sides to an issue.”, which false claim is yet another aspect of this problem. In complex systems, which are virtually everything in our universe, there are usually MANY sides to most all issues, and real dichotomy is more rare than common. The insistence upon the dialectic, which again has limited value due to the false dichotomy it commits, is yet another problem. Dividing events and ideas into dualities, while ignoring the continuum, upon which most dualities are in fact a part of, has been discussed before in ” The Continuum, dualities, Yin, Yang, etc. below.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

Events are largely complex systems, and insisting upon dualities, dichotomies, and linear methods, where A almost always results in B, is not going to work very well. And is as shown above, yet another limit to knowledge, being the failure to understand complex systems, their characteristics, ubiquity, and how they work.

This is in fact, very likely the superiority of the COMP. It gives rise to the logics and mathematics, but it’s not subject necessarily to the same limits by the very means by which it creates the irrational emotions, as an aspect of more rational ways of doing things. It’s more effective because it has more capabilities, due to its very structure. This represents a massive epistemological shift away from strict, logical determinism to a comparison process way of thinking about anything, which can include logics as well as mathematics, but is not bound, necessarily by them. The COMP can compare anything to other events, because any event, whether internal to the brain and sensory report of the body, or externally existing events can be compared to much else, besides. There is no limit to what events can be compared to others, either. And in creating more outputs using the COMP, those also can be compared to other events, producing yet another form of unlimited functions, compound interest at work, i.e. the exponential capabilities of the comparison process.

Language also is NOT logical or rational or mathematical, and has so far resisted understanding it. But if we understand language on its own terms as being comparison processes and comparison methods, it becomes much more understandable as has and can be further shown. No mathematics can describe and give partial meaning to languages. Yet language can include and create mathematics and are expressible, describable, using language. The relationship of languages to mathematics as its parent in even found in the brain, where the math centers are located abutting the language centers from which math arose. There is no question but that language preceded mathematics. But the capabilities of math/logic do not go both ways. It can be created by the human brain, but it cannot necessarily fully comprehend it, otherwise emotions and language would be readily and easily understood, just any modern language easily states math and logic. Get away from logic, and math and use observations of what events in existence, just like in the taxonomies of the species of animals, just as medical professionals and engineers use observation of real events to understand them, etc. This very likely shows the superiority of the innate processes inside the brain, too, to describe and comprehend an irrational world, because we cannot find that last digit…… Godel was right, math and logic cannot understand many events in existence, for the obvious reasons.

16. Much more can be understood by means of the Exclusion Principle (EP), and its extension from physics into thinking. As stated before, the Exclusion Principle can be applied to motor vehicular laws and shows to be the one, basic rule largely underlying most all of it. Two fermions of normal matter, cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The electron repulsion of the EP prevents it. We see this daily that two trees cannot occupy the same space as they fall over and may push the other aside. Same for two rocks and so forth.

In the same way a comparison process exclusion principle is also acting, and this will show very simply how Godel’s Proof comes about and how the negative is created. We cannot stand or sit at the same time. Nor can we sleep or be awake at the same time. Many states preclude other states. We cannot sit, nor walk at the same time. We cannot speak, nor swallow at the same time, nor speak and hold our breaths at the same time. Thus there are in a very real way, actions which exclude other actions, states which exclude other states, and in a very real way, our language expresses and recognizes IMPLICITLY these exclusions in the ways we use words, showing the real modeling of words compared to the events to which they refer, but do not exactly nor fully describe, either. It is this implicit knowledge of exclusion, manifested by the mental exclusion principle, which gives rise to the explicit negative. The negative arises directly from the exclusion principle, a fact which has heretofore been widely ignored. This is the origin of the negative.

17. So we state he does Not run. But this tells us nothing about what he IS doing, does it? It excludes in fact, globally. The negative is often a global exclusion. There is a huge omission of data, is there not? But when we say he is running, by the very nature of both the model and reality, we know he is not sleeping, not walking, not sitting, not driving a car safely, etc., etc., etc. Which is more descriptive and complete? The negative, or the implied exclusion? Obviously the latter. And this is likely the problem with the negative, which Godel found. It eliminates too much information, virtually all of it. Using a logic of exclusion, which is what the comparison process uses, far, far more is kept into the description and thus is then more complete. Observations of events such as living species do this. Observations of the physical exam and history do this. Observations of plate tectonics also do this. Math uses the negative. So does logic. and here is the point, the comparison process doesn’t, and thus is capable of understanding much more than the math/logical linear methods can. The logic of implied exclusion is what is going on here, and that is the comparison process in most cases, and thus is far, far more capable of dealing with events in existence in terms of verbal descriptions than is formal math and logics.

In fact, was not the very phrase, “This statement is NOT true.” or a form of it, how Godel’s proof was created? By the use of the negative, again. Is this a coincidence? Not likely. The limits of using a logic and math in which the negative is used likely created the problem. Created the incompleteness. A logic of exclusion, such as used in observed systems, will likely not have the same limits as math/logic found by Godel.

By comparing directly what math can do with what words can do, we see this contrast. This may be a part of the solution to the problem of the limits to math/logic and linear methods. And it’s shown very, very clearly by using the same tool, the comparison process, which our brains use to create language, and which we have ignored far too long.

18. Essentially, there many aspects of the limits to knowledge of many kinds. Once the comparison process and its multiplicit and open ended characteristics are known, then much more can flow. Godel’s incompleteness theorem shows the logical, mathematical basis that such systems were incomplete. But simply because a statement is logical, does not mean it compares highly to events which exist. We must test those statements for completeness by comparing them to events in existence, which is the scientific method in a nutshell. It escapes beyond the limits of logic/math to find events to which those do not apply. It may be why scientific method is superior to pure thought alone, too. The mind trap of logic and idealisms.

If some other limits to empirical knowledge can be shown, which are based upon mathematics and the sciences, which are heavily mathematized, then some hitherto unspecified by Godel’s theorem, “kinds” of incompleteness would give support to it.

The Exponential barrier has been shown to be such an empirical limit to measurement. That there is no absolute space or time, nor perfections infinities, or certainties, or ultimates or absolutes of any kind, including immortalities of individuals, is very likely the case as has been shown by the limits of mathematical measurements, and it likely may also be the case for most verbal descriptions based upon language entirely.

That many statements in language CANNOT be expressed using mathematical symbolisms and methods, shows, clearly, the limits to math/logical statements stated by Godel’s theorem of incompleteness. This has been addressed before in detail and need not be shown again. That the taxonomies of the species cannot be expressed using math, nor logic by themselves, altho those can help, but is established by observations and comparisons massively is very likely the case. And this shown yet again, by comparison, the difference between descriptions verbal and mathematical descriptions or measurements. The limits of the the former are not necessarily the limits of the latter, and vice versa.

19. Essentially, we now invoke the structuralist approach. Most everything has structure, and that means the structure —-> function/output approach. For every structure there is a describable and/or measurable output, or outcome. This is essential to understanding complex systems, such as those biological and physical, too. And the premise that most all structure/function relationship have their capabilities as well as their limits. That this fits well into the findings of Godel’s theorem is clear. But the implications are as wide ranging as our understanding biological as well as physical complex systems. It’s yet another comparison process tool, i.e., a comparison method for understanding events around us, far, far better than linear, mathematical methods.

20. Whereas the logical, mathematical process builds up systems based upon concepts and ideas, the observational approach builds up systems based upon constant calls to events in existence. The taxonomies of the species, the periodical table of the elements, the IUPAC listing and organization of the compounds; the listing of all known biological proteins, enzymes, etc., much the same; the Hertzsprung Russell diagram of all known stars; the classification astronomical of all known galaxies, from the dwarf irregulars to the elliptical galaxies, to the various kinds of spiral galaxies, to the dwarf to the massive low surface brightness galaxies; and the nebulae; the planets from the asteroids to the rocky planets, to the gas giants, to the plutoids and so forth. These are most ALL classified NOT by logical forms, but by comparisons. In that sense they are NOT logical forms, nor mathematical, although those tools can be helpful, but in a limited form. These are all of different types, including the receptor sites method in pharmacology and the differential diagnoses methods plus the classification of all known human disease states, etc. But each of them has a physical basis which math and logic do not have, necessarily. Nor can they easily be described by math/logic of a linear kind, but only approximated.

21. And those approximations, which Kuhn showed were characteristic of the Ptolemaic perfect circles, then with epicycles; the sun centered solar system models, the elliptical model of same by Kepler, and the elements of orbits now used, all approximated, by the others, yet, the progression is never ending. It’s the approach by approximation which shows the exponential barrier being seen as a limit to knowledge. Again, these all show limits to knowledge, by the COMP. When we compare these as did Kuhn, we recognize the patterns above, also. Those approximations are the limits to knowledge, the incompletenesses also which are stated, but not identified as specific instances by Godel’s theorems.

As and aside, Gödel’s theorem applied to recursive systems, such as logic and mathematics. It should be pointed out that the comparison process is necessarily recursive and massively so, given the ability to think about thinking, understand understanding, writing about writing, recognizing recognition, ultimately from comparing a comparison without limit, this become very clear. This once again, the recursivity of the COMP shows a relationship to Gödel.

22. Have also addressed the limits of humans in terms of insights, from cortical blindness to lack of insight by many both normal and abnormal mental states. Of the neglect syndromes. Of the inability of animals to see the outcomes of their actions as can we, although not all humans can. These kinds are all of the same, limits to knowledge based upon structural limits of the methods being used.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

Section 18: the ignoratio ignorationis problems.

23. The exclusion principle is also the case either specifically or explicitly. The consistencies of the complex biochemistry biological organisms can be seen as this, in fact, which both include and exclude specific capabilities and so forth. A poison can be seen as a biochemical inconsistency which can damage or kill the organism. Those processes of aging can be seen in the same light. The consistencies biochemical of living species are a logic all their own, observed and real. There are tasks they can do and which they cannot. They are the biochemical sum of their capabilities and limits, as well. The many truths can be seen in the same light, limits and capabilities of mathematical, scientific, logical, moral, historical, and spiritual truths, etc., each with their limits and capabilities.

Ideas and beliefs may implicitly and/or explicitly exclude other ideas. There is emotional exclusion where we simply do not like something. There is the ignoratio ignorationis exclusion which persons do not literally know what they do not know. There is the exclusion of knowledge by limited intellect, by dementias, by stupidity, by the above lack of knowledge by inadequate education, or ignorance of intellectual tools. There are many ways in which belief and ideas can be excluded directly or indirectly, such as brute force method, too commonly used, “If you don’t do/believe this, you will be shot.”

There are many other points to be made about many other aspects of this insight. Idealisms will exclude empirical methods, because the word/idea is held to be superior to events in existence, which are held to be, classically, mere shadows of the Ideal. Of course, the big pot, the universe does not go into the little pot, the brain, which shows how silly and foolish Platon’s idealistic beliefs were. We humans fit into the universe and are subject to it, not vice versa, and it was not until these exclusive, mind trapping idealisms were exposed as egocentric, homocentric, geocentric nonsense, that modern sciences came about and began their exponential expansion.

24. This also gives insights. If medical & scientific knowledge has been expanding exponentially, doubly about every 5-6 years, for the last many decades, and it seems very likely, and we still don’t know all which we need to know, is this not yet again another case of the limits to our knowledge? Having seen scientific knowledge very rapidly expanding exponentially yet we are not yet able to fully model even the brain, or complex biological systems, let alone a single cell, and much else, including living systems. Does this not also provide more evidence of the essential incompleteness of our knowledge, even though we know vastly more about our universe, compared to what was known 500 years ago, alone.

Language, like so many complex systems is unlikely to be fully understood without recognizing that linear, logical, mathematical methods are inadequate to the task. Once this realization is made, using the comparison process, then we can make real progress in understanding language and thus linguistics.

25. What are some of the other, more easily seen limits to knowledge? Let us take, as have so many times, the word, Tree. What does this have in comparison to that oak tree in my front yard? Does it give the size and structure of the roots, the size and shape of the trunk, the many branches, their locations of sizes and shape? Does it tell us about the genetics or physiology of it? Does it tel us the shape of the leaves, how they are growing or not, budding processes, or how many and where all those leaves are on the tree, or how they move in the wind, the rustling of the leaves as the poets state? No. It leaves that all out. No wonder our knowledge is incomplete!!! For these and most every other events in existence, our ideas/words are inadequate to the task. Then we wonder why our knowledge is incomplete? Gut Gott im Himmel!! It’s so obvious. Yet very much like not seeing the forest for the trees, again, by NOT comparing what we do, to what we observe, we miss the limits of ideas/words, language and math.

26. As Korzybski, the founder of general semantics, stated so many years ago, “The Word is NOT the thing.” In more general terms, the idea/word is NOT the event in existence to which it compares/refers. By confusing the two, ideas/words, brain products, with events in existence, there is the trouble. This harkens back to the philosophical idealism of Platonistic idealisms, which stated that ideas/words were the “ultimate absolutes”, and that events in existence were mere shadows of those absolute realities of ideas. We can see very quickly today, from the standpoints of our highly successful and exponentiating empirical sciences, that Platonists had it exactly ass backwards. It’s in psychiatric terminology of personality disorders, exactly the use of Projection, accusing others of those bad deeds which the disorder is doing itself. This unmasks the problem with the idealistic, self-centered, almost puerile in its origins, mind trap at last. There exists an external universe of events in existence, independent of our limited, small brains and ideas. It’s the Idea/words which are the merest shadows of events in existence, not the converse. Or as Dr. Johnson did, upon hearing of Berkeley’s absurd idealism, “I refute it thus” and kicked at him symbolically.

And is this not yet again, another implicit means of exclusion of ideas? Was not Galileo’s suppression and ignoring by the Scholasticists yet another example of how and why our ideas are incomplete? They looked away as the large and small spheres he dropped from his sedcond story where they could see them land at the same time, events contradicting Aristoteles very clearly. The Scholasticists refused even to look into his telescope where the moons of Jupiter clearly circled it, thus showing that by comparison, by extension that the earth could also orbit a much larger sun. Idealisms of all sorts are diametrically opposed to empirical observations, holding the scientific beliefs mistaken, when quite the opposite is the case, by simple observations a child could do.

27. Look once more this time carefully, at how we go about our daily business. We go over to a grocery store, and know where it is by comparing to our internal map, either by using a grid, or by comparing to landmarks, which eventually gets us there. (That some persons cannot read maps is most always shown by their inability to find north or south, or know where they are relatively, by comparing to a map. Instead they compare sites to their own idiosyncratic landmarks and few others can figure out those, so they can’t give good directions to others, either. Again, the comparison process gone badly wrong!!) But in going to the store do we see everything about us, the stores, the houses, etc.? Most of the time if you asked a person what was three doors down from a local shop they frequented, they couldn’t tell you. And there are endless numbers of examples of this, too. We miss most all the details. We deliberately ignore almost all of the universe, because of the fact we cannot remember it all due to limits of memory and processing information at less than 3-4 subjects at the same time. We are not good multitaskers for N =/> 3.

And this shows what’s going on in our day to day lives. We ignore most all of the details. We haven’t the capacity in our memories, either. And no wonder our models are incomplete!! Further, we cannot attend easily to more than about 2-3 things going on at the same time. There are limits to our awarenesses, too. This is easily shown in a practical sense by what happens when people drive and try to use their cell phones. They have about 4 times the number of accidents compared to those who don’t drive, if they use phones simultaneously. Therefore a good deal of our ignorance is not only memory capacity but channel capacity as well. Those are yet further instances of why most all our models are incomplete, as well.

28 In order to get around those limitations, let us employ the tool, the Structure/function model again. We have seen any number of people in our experience who are good multi-taskers. They can take those same tasks which many do and do a lot more in the same time and often better than most others. This is nothing new nor surprising. When Julius Caesar was dictating his Gallic war work, he had two scribes, one on each side of him. He’d dictate to the one to the point where his speaking rate was faster than the scribes writing rate, stop and then pick up where he left off with the other scribe, and repeated the process. Thus doing a lot, multitasking in the same way. Both dictating as well as composing what he would be dictating to the other. I had a college chemistry prof who not only would lecture to us in class about a subject which he knew well, but was simultaneously planning ahead about how his experiments would be done later that afternoon. He knew of others who could do the same. Many of us have.

I knew of a ward clerk who could finish up here work at about twice the rate of the other clerks in the same and other hospitals, tho her work load was not on average any more than the others. Someone in administration should have studied her, figured out how she did it, and taught the methods to the others. Not surprisingly that hospital closed 2 years later. To think that such a person could do that task so fast and well, & could be extended to other tasks in the hospital might have kept it open. Least energy rules.

Now why are these, known multitasking and brain dual tasking capabilities not being studied and then adapted to teaching others how to do it accurately and capably on a wide scale basis? Surely many others have seen and heard of the above abilities? Why stand so many here idle? The ability to double even quadruple our output by learning and having the self-discipline to learn these methods while still young is not to be scoffed at or ignore.

Let us proceed to another important issue relevant the above limits of human knowledge.

Categories and the Hierarchies

Herein, let us briefly explore how catergories come about using the comprisin process which both creates the categories, fills them in many cases with similarly structured/functioning elements and this then leads necessarily to the higher abstraions and categories of the hierarchies. Udnerstanding this relationship, and how the COMP can create and read the structure of this type, just as it both creates and reads maps, indices, dictionaires, encyclopeidas, phone book, directories, paginations, etc. It organizes the data creatively, thus building up an efficient, effectively, least energy method, which favors the creation of such organized forms.

Math cannot follow these categorical, hierarchically arranged transitional movements. The comparison process can navigate up and donw and among these changing levels, these epiphenomenological changes. The COMP can recognize, create and read them. Math can’t do this. Within categories, it can measure and count, and its other tasks. But math is ever the maid servant of verbal descriptions, not its master, which may explain some of the failures of math to describe most complex systems in the universe as well as complex systems of living species. Mathematics can describe to a limited extent within the categories, but it cannot scale up to the next. Words and the comparison process can, and this is another major limit to mathematics.

Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

Sadly, the age of psychopathology is not over, but simply getting worse, as the increasing violence of terrorisms, the jihadis, countless wars, and the institutionalizing of crime within our national and international societies abounds.

The psychological problem of the sociopath is NOT understood well enough either to give us the deeper insights we need to deal with it, or to treat it.

Essentially, the problem is in the frontal lobes of humans. When those areas are badly damaged, we see normal, socially appropriate persons develop profoundly inappropriate acts, with loss of social sense, empathy, and the ability to judge what is socially acceptable or not. Specifically, they can’t see it’s wrong to steal, kill, harm, or otherwise damage people and the properties around them.

When the basic problems of children who grow to adulthood and are not aware of what is going on, and cannot see that assaulting & harming others in any way is wrong, then the problem has NOT been solved but is in fact growing worse, as ANY look at the rising crime, violence and death rates in Chicago and Washington DC.. will show.]

The problem is lack/loss of information processing in the frontal lobes. Let me, as someone trained in psychology/psychiatry and the neurosciences, be specific about it. Sociopaths, for whatever reasons, CANNOT detect that their behaviors are wrong.

What are those specific mental mechanisms residing in their frontal lobes which have gone wrong? This is a medical structure/function disorder, which is how such conditions are scientifically approached.

It comes down to a basic understanding of understanding. We must be able to think about thinking, that is, empirical introspection. Many persons who are dementing lack the ability to see that they are losing their memories and their minds. The damage to their cortical processors is so great, they cannot USE those cortical processors to see their problems. In the same way, sociopaths cannot use their frontal lobes to perceive this problem. And what’s worse, they may be so old and brain hardwired that they cannot Learn it, nor see it, either. We cannot teach an older dog new tricks. They are set in their ways, just as personalities are set in their ways after age 21 or so. They are ignorant of their ignorance, they do not KNOW that they do not know, they are clueless, and in technical terms, they lack psychological insight.

Further, as yet another manifestation of the disease, they are narcissistic, often highly so, and the characteristic of this narcissism propounds and worsens this lack of empathy and insight also. This is often a dopamine driven disorder, too. Narcissists are further highly ego-syntonic with their pathologies and very hard to treat, or develop insight, for that matter.

Because we cannot easily undo this brain hardwiring, we are in a dilemma. We are stuck with persons who are hardwired to lie, cheat, steal, commit all manner of crimes against humanity and cannot even see that they are wrong doers, either. They sin and have no shame.

There are many solutions to this problem, but most of them very badly damaging with lots of side effects, like executions, ECT, drugs and such, but nothing yet which really can be done, because the basic mechanisms have not Heretofore been understood.

The problem is Long Term Memory, which makes those behaviors stable. We cannot get round those easily. There is no good way, yet, to reverse the specific pathologies in those umpteen millions of synapses, written and hardwired in protein.

However, due to the newest findings in fMRI (functional MRI) and MEG, we can at least begin to understand what’s going on.

We have a real existing system of social control in our frontal lobes, which has traditionally been called the conscience. This is an internalized series of prescribed and proscribed acts which we build up from operant conditioning and training in the standard morality of our cultures. It involves the ability to “see” or process acts and compare them to the standard social rules of behaviors. When this comparison processor is not working or is damaged by drugs, dementias, trauma, etc., we see medically, psychiatrically, the loss of those social behaviors.

In most sociopaths whose behaviors are likely to be developmental, rather than due to brain lesions, the problem is like that of a child, who’s 12 and is not responsible for his actions as his brain processors in the frontal lobes are not working well. We call this being below the “age of accountability”, or immaturity and wisely these kids are not treated as adults, because there is a chance that their personalities, maturing with age, will grow out of it. Which is why we don’t make solid, secure diagnoses in children of serious mental disorders before age 16, either. This is why kids don’t vote, or are not allowed to drink either, because their social processors are not likely to be working very well.

It’s simply NO coincidence that the time of age kids become mature, around 19-21 is also the time when we let them vote and marry and become adults, too, altho the onset of this maturity, while early, happens at about ages 12-14, right in line with Piaget’s child development of logic and reason.

And this is yet another clue as to why there are sociopaths. They do NOT have this ability to compare their own personal actions, Introspectively, with their consciences, if they have a conscience at all!!. They lack the fundamental training/capacity to see that, and if it’s not taken care of before age 16-21, it can become a permanent, social disability because of brain Hardwring, which prevents them from easily changing their behaviors/personalities, too. Personalities stabilize by ages 19-21, in line with motor skills, talking and walking brain programs, and speaking language and being able to learn new languages, easily. We cannot teach an old dog new tricks, in the popular parlance.

Those are the problems and are NOT being addressed. As stated before, using fMRI and MEG we can SEE the comparison processors at work when persons are asked to determine if others are stealing or harming other persons. If working properly, persons will recognize it as wrong. In sociopaths, they will not. This recognition signal is the P-300, a cortical evoked potential (CEP) which can be measured by the MEG and by EEG technologies. Thus we can SEE in normals a CEP, when normals recognize as a theft, a beating, or something socially wrong and it can be detected. The fMRI can show us where in the brain it is occurring, and we can theoretically detect a consistent, pathological absence of recognition response for a sociopath in his frontal lobes. This is the clinical correllate of sociopathy in the brain which will NOT be detected. The magnetic encephalogram (MEG) can show us at 2-5 ms. intervals where in the brain this is coming from and can be combined with fMRI data to observe these recognitions(normals or not (sociopaths) of anti-social events.

Thus, we now have the means to detect the conscience itself, to, understand/document in an objective way if a person is sociopathic, or not. We will be able to actually image the conscience at work in real time by stimulating these recognitions of social acceptability or deviancy and measure/describe them. We have, in short, the ability at present to see the conscience and the Conscience at Work!!

So in a very real sense, we can develop with the instrumentation available to us, the ability to detect sociopathy of all sorts, and learn more about it by comparing those brain patterns, to what we see going on in the brains of normal, law abiding persons. As well as to be able to detect if incarcerated persons, whether by criminal acts, or acts of insanity, are cured or will to a high degree of probability, be recidivists. We will NOT in time, need any old judge to tell us this, just accurate psychometrics.

The last key is the point magnetic stimulator of brain. This will basically shut down temporarily cortical activity by high magnetic stimulus, and abolish this electrocortical activity, non-invasively, painlessly as well. So we have the ability to shut down brain areas which perform basic functions detectable by the MEG/fMRI, too. We now have the technology to build the Magnetic point stimulator of the brain, too.

So, indeed, we will get the information just exactly HOW and WHY the sociopaths of all sorts come about, and what’s gone wrong in all the myriad ways they can go wrong. Treatment is yet another area, but the new understanding written above can create that, too. And will be addressed later, as ibogaine is the key.

We want to get rid of the jihadis & terrorists and control them? Dopamine blockers will do that. We want to prevent and deal at once with more St. Louis rioters? Aerosols of a good dopamine blocker, unlike the less effective tear gas, will stop it at once, and permanently if chosen. They will go to sleep and when they wake up, the rioting will be over. No water cannons, no tear gas, rubber bullets or real bullets are needed. Go the the SOURCE of the sociopathy and end it.

You can read more about this in my “The Praxis”.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

And in

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

& the more key:

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

Table of Contents: Le Chanson Sans Fin

Le Chanson Sans Fin
Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=22&relatedposts_position=0

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/comparison-process-explananda-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=17&relatedposts_position=1

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=38&relatedposts_position=0

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-the-comparison-process-comp/

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/106/

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/complex-systems-boundary-events-and-hierarchies/

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/dealing-with-sociopaths-terrorists-and-riots/

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/

24  Imaging the Conscience.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/imaging-the-conscience/

How to Cure Diabetes (AODM-2)

How to cure AODM. (Type 2 adult onset diabetes)

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

This is the first of several articles which will show how to potentially “Win a Nobel Prize”. & will be written about 2-3 per month to show creativity at work.

Within a few years AODM will become a far more serious problem because the incidence of it is markedly increasing every generation, possibly due to more person being overweight and lack of exercise, also.

From the American Diabetes Association:

“The diabetes epidemic is taking a devastating physical, emotional and financial toll on millions of people across the nation. Currently, in the U.S. there are nearly 26 million people living with diabetes and another 79 million with prediabetes. The national annual cost of diagnosed diabetes is an estimated $245 billion, representing a 41 percent increase over a five year period.””

See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2013/2014-legislative-priorities.html#sthash.EZjvpxuX.dpuf
But there is a very real, potential cure for diabetes coming. It’s very simple, actually, and holds the key to a cure for AODM for most if not all who have it. What has been seen any times and is well documented and scientifically reported, is that when the distal 2/3 of the stomach is removed surgically, or otherwise bypassed or compromised, that within 2-3 months most of those with AODM no longer need medications. Blood sugars in almost all cases return to near normal. This is unexpected to say the least. Even those who get gastric sleeves, which decrease the digestion in the stomach also find their diabetes gone in several weeks. This does not mean the potential for diabetes is gone, but the damaging high blood sugar goes away.

How and why does this occur? No one completely knows, but it’s where the potential for a Nobel Prize in medicine and Physiology must very likely come.

But why does diabetes have such a high incidence in the first place? and the answer might be had from looking at the condition in native Americans in Arizona. Among the Pima Indians on the American side of the border, the incidence is about 85%, one of the highest in the world. It’s known that in most cases the AODM gene is a dominantly inherited gene, which means a person only needs a single gene change to get diabetes, although there may be other factors which influence the expression of the gene, both environmental and genetic.

But why should a gene which can be potentially lethal exist at a high incidence? It’s well known that in thalassemia and sickle cell disease, the diseases exist in an environment with epidemic malaria. And both those conditions provide a modest but significant resistance to malaria in those persons with one, recessive gene. This is an example of genetics which contributes to reducing mortality because it has beneficial effects, too, although it can be very bad to carry both recessive genes.

The same is probably true of AODM. Why it exists is very simple. The brain and rest of the nervous system can only survive if there is blood sugar, glucose, present in high enough quantities to keep the nervous system working and undamaged during famine. In cases of famine, which is also wide spread and endemic, if a person is moderately diabetic, this will spare the person’s nervous system from serious damage, esp. in cases of short term famine.

On the Arizona border area, this is exactly the case. On the American side there are more than adequate food supplies in most case, the person can grow obese with the rich American diet and get diabetes. On the south side, food is much less available and more traditional diets low in sugars and starches, and most importantly calories are found. Thus those south of the border are not as likely to get diabetes. But since they are essentially the same genetics, the food rich north side gets diabetes and the food poor south side does not so much, and they survive better in famines to have children and pass the diabetic gene on to their children, who also are more likely to survive. The border acts as a kind of controlled study comparing diet and obesity to incidence of diabetes type 2.

In the diverse American population, for example there is a typical Caucasian gene for diabetes, tho there are also central Asian, Suomi as well as Magyar forms of the disease exist which are not the same gene as in most of Western Europe in those of not Asian ancestries.

But everyone in all societies in the past 10,000 years has experienced famine and thus the widespread development of the gene in societies, about 30% in most, although it’s not always expressed. Thus the high prevalence of the gene in Eurasian peoples, because the diabetes is, during child-bearing years, rarely expressed. It is expressed at later ages, and thus individuals survive through the child bearing years to have children and pass it to the next generation.

The characteristics of AODM are that there is an insulin resistance in the disease, which is associated with higher insulin levels and occasionally hypoglycemia, which is often an early sign of AODM. In addition, this form of diabetes comes on with aging, usually above 45, with obesity, that is large fat deposits, and in many cases with high starch/sugar intake. In order to explain these findings, then the following hypothesis is likely to be correct.

Clearly, in the case of blood sugar control, the body has many, many mechanisms to raise blood sugar. The liver can create glucose from Muscle use glycogen stores to raise blood sugar. Release of adrenaline and cortisol during stress raises blood sugar also, as well as the obvious, taking glucose/sugar containing foods in liquid form which can raise blood sugar levels within minutes.

But where is the control on insulin levels? When blood sugar goes up too high, insulin levels rise to control that. But where is the control for too high blood insulin? Simply cutting back insulin release by the beta cells in the pancreas does little to cut back the too high insulin levels in the blood. No one knows how insulin levels and activity is controlled. As is so often the case, the absence of something is often an important clue as to what’s going on.

The stomach is a very active hormonal and biosynthetic organ. It makes gastrin, secretin, VIP’s & GIP’s of many types, and intrinsic factor, among others. These are all polypeptides. Because removing the stomach and even the distal 2/3 of it effectively eliminates high blood sugars in those with AODM type 2 within several weeks, that means a substance is being taken away which the stomach creates. Something which can compete with diabetes on insulin receptor(s). And it takes a number of weeks for those receptors to be turned over, recycled and resynthesized, thus eliminating the insulin-like binding polypeptide/protein which is blocking the insulin for control.

Interestingly, AODM is insulin resistance. In other words there is a lot more insulin in the blood than expected and it’s not as effective in acting to reduce blood sugars. This is consistent with an agent produced by the stomach which is blocking insulin on the insulin receptor(s). All too often in AODM one sees hypoglycemia, as a manifestation of this. We also know of ILGF, insulin-like growth factor, which also binds to insulin receptors, so this model has solid support from existing mechanisms.

Thus, we must look for a polypeptide/protein which is insulin-like, which acts as part of a mechanism to control too high insulin levels. Thus completing, at least in part, the other side of the equation in blood sugar control. The insulin receptors must be specifically investigated to find what else besides insulin is binding to them. This will in time show the polypeptide/protein with insulin-like activity/binding which is being synthesized by the stomach.
Simply blocking this factor will abolish the insulin resistance, which will act effectively to cure the AODM.

The surgical approach to curing diabetes is a brute force method full of problems and even can be lethal. Blocking the specific polypeptide cause of AODM is a technical finesse which is far, far safer, simpler and to the point. & by this new knowledge of what it is in the stomach which causes AODM-2, we will gain a great deal more understanding about how insulin works and is regulated, too.

Curing most all AODM with this new knowledge very likely will result in another Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for the person/team who finds the insulin-like agent which causes AODM. And that person(s) will have the distinction of curing/highly controlling a new epidemic in mankind which will undoubtedly become much, much worse over the next generation. For which tens of millions of people will owe a huge debt of gratitude, and a Nobel Prize.

One caveat is that it’s unknown why AODM waits until middle to older age person to present itself. Finding the right polypeptide/protein which becomes more active/binding in those age groups, will be confirming evidence that’s what is going on and what, specifically, the agent or agent family is.

The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

“Gnothi seauton.” —Socrates, 4th C. BC, Ellas

“User Ma’at Ra” Power is the truth of Ra.,
throne name of Ramesses 2, The Great, 13th C., BC

“Knowledge is good because from knowledge comes wisdom and from wisdom comes many good things.” —Proverbs, 10th C. BC

“Knowledge is (can be) power.”
—Francis Bacon, 16th C. England

“Least energy rules.”

“The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine”
—JBS Haldane, 20th C, UK, (paraphrased)

Contents
1. From the simple to the complex, the hierarchies
2. Tracing the history of mind/brain from the simplest neural nets to the human form. Cnidaria, to the worms, fish, amphibians, to birds, mammals and primates
3. Signal detection and recognition as the basic forms of early brains.
4. Long Term Memories (LTM) and.
5. Intelligence and recognition, from animals to humans
6. From the simple to the complex in the human brain/mind; input yields output, via the comparison process to create recognition
7. The Relativity of the cortex, as the COMP
8. Measurement and description as COMP forms. The relationship between description verbal and measurement numericity
9. How the comparison process models the world, recursivity without limit, processing without limit; the immense re-iterations of the “play it again, Sam” aspect of the Comparison process.
10. The input/output feedback created by the comparison process. Metaphors, analogies, parables, fables, etc. and thinking
11. Output becomes input, becomes output; the recursivity of recursivity.
12. Positive feedback arising from the COMP; exponentiating feedback capabilities. Enzyme feedback and control; self governing, self-regulating capabilities of the COMP
13. Method of Comparison in the sciences; evaluating outcomes in medicine; comparing outcomes of actions/behaviors; morality as comparing outcomes; laws of the universe as outcomes’ comparisons;
“By their fruits you will know them.”
14. The conscience in the frontal lobes as method of comparison.
The behaviors of animals compared to humans
15. Garden of Eden, knowing good and evil; the mind/brain interface
16. Mind of the child and the ability to reason and think; the beginnings of reason and its relationship to maturation of the brain; logic as comparison processing
17. Difference between human reasoning and creativity and that of animals rests in lack of higher level comparison processing not available to most animals.
18. Ignoratio ignorationis problem. Dementias, children’s reasoning limits, neglect syndromes in strokes; sociopathy, narcissism, lack of psychological insight
19. Characteristics of same directly related to lack/loss of higher level comparison processing; they cannot know good or evil
20. Treatment implications for personality disorders based upon lack of high level comparison processing defects.
21. Problem of good and evil simply solved using the COMP

22. How recursivity of the COMP models universe of events, which are also recursive; the secrets of the COMP’s power. Hofstadter’s “Strange loop” explained by; confirmation of scientific findings and recursivity of universe of events in existence
23. Comparison process words are all recursive and identified as such by recursivity. Variations of biological themes.
24. The relationship among moral laws, the conscience, to scientific laws, and legal laws; the COMP as the lowest common denominator of higher cortical processes and thinking; the compendia of medical exams, diagnosis and treatments, as COMP
25. Relativity and the COMP
26. Development of mathematics from the COMP by input/output hierarchies and methods of comparison. Geometry and algebra arising from the COMP methods.
27. The roots and reinforcements of discovery; the pareidolias
28. Newton’s insights about the spectrum and the rainbow; discovery and the dopamine boost; how Newton’s insights were like those of a child’s discovery; curiosity as COMP
29. Reinforcement of the COMP by innate dopamine boost
30. Copying, multiplication, replication, growing, all modeled by the COMP; unifying model of the universe based upon the COMP
31. Decoding, translation of language based upon COMP; development of language is comparison processing, on many levels; the language acquisition device of Chomsky is physiological and sited in the speech centers and the babble of children and the speech initiation centers of the frontal cortex; vocalizations built in, structurally, genetically;
32. Hyoid bone and speech and Neanderstalensis and humans

33. COMP as organizing process in the rain and in understanding the universe.
34. Dictionaries, thesauri, maps, taxonomies, are all ordered, created and read by the COMP as instances of its ubiquity, usefulness and value. COMP as having anti-entropic values, measurable by information theory.
35. Complex systems which mathematics cannot but slightly, partially create or describe, such as taxonomies, and the vast compendia of medical work.; Hertzsprung Russell diagram of the stars, all COMP; Periodic table of elements is COMP; periodic table of elements; IUPAC list of compounds, etc. endless, 100′s of millions of examples of the COMP at work.
36. Organization of rock types is COMP Plate tectonics as a complex system created, ordered and explained as COMP
36. Method of comparison underlies the sciences.
37. Least energy principle (LEP) and Occam’s Razor are both COMP
38 Traveling salesman problem solved by ants/bees is LEP
39. Scientific creativity and the comparison process.
40. Methods/skills of professionals are comparison methods; musical styles as keys to understanding and identifying composers
41. Creativity in computer programming; the potential unlimited of the quantum computer
42. Understanding the mind requires understanding the universe. the then interplay, input/output of both for more understanding of the complexities within our bodies and the complexities outside of us.
43. Human flight as measure of capabilities of the human mind/living systems. Rhizobacteris fix nitrogen at soil temps, which humans cannot do. English robin uses molecular quantum technology to detect earth’s magnetic field for navigation, which humans cannot do.
44. Living systems can make the highly unlikely and impossible for us, become certain. Potential of these outcomes are enormous. Is everything we can imagine, possible? Unlimited creativity/potential shown by the COMP and the understanding of the mind/brain interface.

1. In the last article “Complexity, Boundary Events and Hierarchies”, a good deal of time was devoted to describing the scale/hierarchy differences among the levels in hierarchies, such as in seen in the highly successful and nearly fully outlined reductionist model. That is, we start at the simple particle physics of the stable particles, protons, electrons, which create neutrons, and the neutrinos, from which all stable matter is created. Then to the atomic level starting with a single proton and electron, from which the hydrogen-1 atom is created, then up the chain creating all of the the atoms, elements and isotopes, then to the molecules created by chemical bonding, thence to the great carbon bonding polymers, including DNA/RNA, collagen, keratin, chitin, starches, and cellulose, membrane structures, microtubules, muscle fibrils, etc., until we get to brain, the highest order complex organic system known.

And this is the point where the boundary events/emergent phenomena which create the human mind are found. But the roots of the human mind, this complex system created from the cortical cell columns did not arise de novo, but was sequentially created by yet another hierarchy going back to the creation of cells, and then eukaryotic cells, then multicellular, simple forms, which finally led to the higher animals and their brains.

2. But let us trace back to the start, the earliest transition from nervous system, no matter how primitive, to mind. From the simple to the complex, that most fertile guidepost to understanding. The bare bones event here is signal detection, how a simple nerve network detects events outside of it and responds. There is the initial start of mind, in simple signal detection of a neuronal network. We see this in the way it interacts with the environment, creating a simple response to environmental inputs. Sponges don’t have this. The simplest neural network known are those of the Cnidaria, the jellyfish and anemones, corals, and related species. They are aware of their environment and can interact with it in ways the lesser multicellular animals cannot. They can recognize other species, and individuals who are not self, as well. They are capable of interacting with their environments in ways which are closed to lesser animals such as sponges, and they have true nerve networks, often eyes and muscles allowing the motile forms to swim whereas the sessile forms can only move a bit locally. This is where the first nervous systems of any size and complexity started.

We then move rapidly upwards in the tree of life, but at each stage there is signal detection of light, sounds, movement and acknowledgement of self and mates for sex, though their reproduction methods may be very different from our own. Can such animals be stated to be aware? Yes, but in a limited sense. When they are touched, they detect it and move. Primitive, but real. Signal detection but very little else.

The next are the worms, and then the segmented worms, from which all higher animals have developed, including primates and humans. And we can see the remnants of this segmentation in our vertebral columns from the neck on down and the segmentation of the limbs and body deriving nerves from body segments from each of the nerve segments coming off the spine, and higher. And in the higher forms of this, beginning with the fish and the amphibians, there is a new scale/hierarchy found, that of recognition. The fish are territorial. They know where they are and what their territories are and will live in and defend them. They, unlike the lower forms which know only mates and food, can detect inanimate objects and can be seen to show territoriality, which they both seek out, identify, and defend. This is complex recognition, above the level of signal detection which allows the species to recognize mates, highly necessary for survival. They can also recognize food and enemies, too.

3. Recognition is clearly seen from the Mollusca, amphibians, fish and higher life. But from what source does recognition arise? In order to create recognition, there must be at least 2 working processes. The first is Long Term Memory (LTM). From this including short term memory, or working memory as some prefer, there is set up a more or less permanent kind of memory. How this memory is encoded and the nature of it is not the concern here. We cannot be sidetracked too much by trying to understand everything. LTM is a fact which can be accepted.

4. But how does any creature recognize, once it has LTM? It has sensory inputs, and these are tied into LTM systems. When an event, be it smell, taste, touch, visual, etc., is detected, it is at once Compared to LTM tracings for recognition. If the event is clear cut enough, it will be identified by comparison with the LTM. At that point, recognition occurs. To know comes from the word, gnosis. Cognition is knowing. To re-cognize means, literally, to know again. It’s been detected before, and it’s known again. We can re-recognize, too. It can be repeated endlessly, without limit. We do this everyday, all through our lives.

This is an event above signal detection. It’s a higher brain function. Insects do it, demonstrably. The behaviors of bees show this repeatedly. So do primitive animals such as the Cnidarians, and so do the next levels up, the mollusca and chordates. There is a continuous chain of recognition from these animals to the higher animals. Exactly how their nervous systems tie together their sensory inputs with LTM to create recognition is probably not the same among the lower species of animals, but it must necessarily be analogous. In the higher mammals, it must not only necessarily be very similar to those of other mammals and possibly even in the reptiles/birds, but must as we move evolutionarily higher, be more like our own. Until finally in the great apes, the differences among those and humans are likely to be matters of variations on a common theme, contrasted/compared with analogous systems in the birds, viz., our cortical cell columns (CCC’s).

5. And the basic part of intelligence is likely recognition, based upon a comparing together of sensory inputs being to LTM. And this created the comparison process in the brains as we know it. Just how this occurs is a matter for the neurophysiologists to find out, trying to solve the complex nervous system organizations of the annelid worms, the arthopods, mollusca and into the chordates, as well.

But recall the basic guideline to understanding. Events in our universe most always move from the simple to the complex. The complexity is based upon the simplicity of the electron/proton creating an atom. The hydrogen atom being the basic source of the entire rest of the table of elements and isotopes.

Similarly, recognition and that which lies behind it, the comparison process, can be seen as the basic output unit and process/function from which the rest of complex behaviors/functions arise.

6. Again, as so often written before, we must look at the simplest form to build up the complexity of the brain. The higher functions of human brain are recognition, language, the emotions, the thinking processes, the mathematics, and creativity, among many others. These arise in the cerebral cortex, among the cortical cell columns (CCC’s), primarily, with their massive connections to other parts of the brain. But the higher processes of the brain are done in the CCC’s, not elsewhere. This is where the integration of all of those related brain functions occurs. The rest is support structure. Thinking, language, music, the emotions and so forth take place in the cortex. The lesions and structure/function relationships of the higher cortical functions are well established by neurology, neuropathology and neurophysiology. We need not know HOW the immensely complicated CCC’s function, as long as we can identify their outputs, as above, the higher cortical functions. We leave talented and bright neurophysiologists to disentangle all of the impossibly difficult brain connections from the postulated 1000′s of synapses of each neuron, with the other 50-60K neurons in each of the CCC’s and their complex ties with other neurons surrounding them. That complexity is clearly too great for any human mind to grasp, fully.
So we have simplified it down to the comparison process comparing sensory and other inputs with the LTM to create recognition. They are probably acting in parallel, massively, to do the processing in a finite time, too. Again, impossible to understand details of enormously intricate connections, beyond human comprehension, except in part.

So using once again the simple to complex rule, we start with the outputs of the CCC’s mediated by the highest level neurophysiological output, the comparison process, which puts inputs together to create the output of at least, recognition. Upon that simplicity, using the COMP, the entire rest of the higher cortical functions, that is, the mind, can be constructed. From the simple to the complex.

7. Now how has the COMP been missed all these years? We see Comparative anatomies and massive comparisons which have created the taxonomies of all known species on the earth, including viruses. These have been most all composed of large numbers of comparisons. We wrote our English class essays and were asked to compare and contrast. We look at Einstein’s relativity, where he stated the limits to measurement being relative, not absolute, that is, we must compare a set standard to any event we try to measure. And thus most all measurement is comparison process. These have been detailed before in

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/
This is the Relativity of the Cortex, that is, the Comparison Process (COMP).

8. Measurement and description are simply two forms of the same thing. Measurement is comparison to set, numerical standards. Description is verbal comparison to other events, such as colours, sizes, shapes, images, higher/lower; simple, simpler, simplest, etc. In each case the underlying process is the COMP. The kinds of adjectives we use from description, low, lower(comparative form,) lowest, etc., show this descriptive numericity and the exact connection between verbal descriptions and measurements.

9. But what are the characteristics of the comparison process(COMP)? How does it work and why is it suited to this immense job of being at the heart and core of the mind and the higher cortical functions? It has not been found before because it has hidden, disguised and camouflaged itself in the complexity which it has created. Yet it can be shown to be the lowest common denominator of the higher level cortical functions, as has already been shown and will be shown yet again.

The major characteristics of its multiplicit capabilities lie within its recursivity. It can be performed again and again, without limit. We can compare a comparison. To identify the other words which we use in conjunction and the other processes and outputs which arise from the COMP, we note the same characteristic, recursivity. We can compare the comparison of a comparison. We can talk about talking. We can think about thinking. We can understand understanding. We can comprehend comprehension. Write about writing, talk about understanding. We can create creativity, we can recognize recognition. In most every case those words which demonstrate these recursivities arise from the COMP.

If we look at this endless recursivity of the COMP and associated, related, analogous words, we see the basis of the feedback loop. Input becomes output, and then fed back into the loop, so that output once processed again becomes output. Endlessly, and this is why the metaphor, Le Chanson Sans Finis, is so well suited to describe the COMP.

9a. Yet another piece of massive evidence showing the repetitive, recurrent nature of the Comparison process is the “re-” suffix.This is what can be metaphorically called the “Play it again, Sam” characteristic. When we see the repetition, in most cases it’s the COMP showing itself to us. It’s literally everywhere in terms of mental processes. Re-cognize, re-flect, consider/re-consider, remember. Do and re-do. Play and replay. Every time we access a memory, we are repeating the same reading of the memory trace. In speaking, hearing, writing and reading, we do this literally 10K’s of times a day.

Opening the dictionary to this section reveals 1000′s of words beginning with this “Re-” suffix. This is enormous confirming evidence about how important & literally widespread the concept of repetition of function of the COMP is. Again, unable to see the forest for the trees. It’s utterly ubiquitous and again, models so well the recursive, repetition, constant re-iteration of events in existence:  the same atoms, elements, molecules, the same clouds, rocks, trees, grasses, persons and so forth. And this is why the cortical cell columns can be structured simply, because it efficiently reflects, yet again, the modeling of the universe by the cortex, based upon the universal, repetitive events in the universe. This is no accident, and shows once more the endless millions of examples of the truth that Le Chanson is real and existing, too. The song without end, in all of its myriad, rich panoply of ways & versions, variations on the endless themes of the universe.

10. Consider that this recursivity of the comparison process has created the input/output systems of the feedback loop. Consider that at each level of comparison, more and more hierarchies of organization can be created in this way, endlessly. Dr. Hofstadter has written about “The strange loop”. The source of this feedback, which he has recognized, is a process, working endlessly.

If we look at the metaphor itself, we at once, using the comparison process, see the relationships among the other forms: the analogies, a la Hofstadter; the parables, the fables, the similes, the koans, the various myths (mythos) to explain phenomena (Explain an explanation) and on and on. In each case we compare an analogy, a simile, a parable or fable to the existing cases at hand to derive the meaning of them. This is not an accident. This is a critical insight into thinking and what is going on in our cortex.

11. The key point here is both simple and profound. The Comparison Process causes the sensory input to become an output of recognition by comparing to LTM (Long Term Memory). In this way recognition occurs, and can recur endlessly by this same series of events. But let’s take it the next step further. THAT output, the recognition, can become yet another input, which creates yet another output. Which can again become an input —> output. Recurring again and again. The various species are then recognized as being related or not. If related, they are categorized into the various genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms. At each stage the system becomes more ordered.

12. Let us consider even further the more important ramifications of this input/output feedback. Einstein was once asked what the most powerful force in the universe was. He said it was compound interest. This is indeed what a positive feedback system can do, such as the COMP. It can only work when it can input an event, be it sensory, visual, an idea, a word string, memory, etc. But when the person is educated, trained and experienced, and has a good memory, there is Far, far more to input. And because many inputs will produce, esp. in terms of comparisons of outputs, ever MORE outputs, the system begins to grow even faster, to the limits of the COMP’s rate of processing. This is positive feedback, compound interest. It’s growth, reproduction, replication, copying, etc. Because we can copy a copy, re-interate a re-interation, these all above also are seen as comparison process by the rule of commonality, they have the same recursivity of the parent process, the COMP built into them as well.

Consider further the input/output of the enzyme, where the output will modulate the input, where the gene output, the messenger RNA yields a protein chain which will further modulate the gene output by ITS output of product. The product feeds back into the output to modulate order, organize, and control it. Feedback can be negative as well as positive. Thus it can CONTROL, govern, and regulate itself. This genetic modulating creates a self-governing, self ordering system, which we call the living cell, which can be understood, to some extent by relating all of the myriads of input/output events to each other, which creates the complex system which we call life. By this analogy we understand the same of the comparison process, which can also self-govern, self-organize the brain’s cortex and other structures, as well as information, memories, language, morals, etc.

Now extend this model to the CCC’s which create the Comparison Process. The input is processed to an output, and that output becomes yet another input —> output. This is how the abstractions, the higher values are created, duty, honor, country, etc.

13. But let us extend this. Using this Method of Comparison concerning differing outputs, where THOSE are compared, that is the products are compared, we find differences among them. But, we MUST be able to input the last output to get that far. Suppose we have a series of antibiotics which we want to check/test for safety and effectiveness. We do this by seeing how well those kill bacteria, for instance. Then compare their effectiveness in killing bacteria in human beings. Then compare the untoward side effects of their use with respect to allergic reactions, affects on major organ systems, and so forth. In the end, we find those few antibiotics which both kill the bacteria effectively and do not adversely affect the highest majority of humans tested on. We compare the outcomes, that is the outputs of the testing, do we not?

We compare the comparisons, the input becomes output, which is compared to the other outputs. In this way one of many methods of comparison reaches a higher level of understanding, governance, order and control.

14. That is the key to evaluation of therapies for medical practice. But let us compare this comparison yet again, making the input become the output. What happens when someone kills, lies, cheats, steals, or commits other crimes? There is a bad outcome. people get hurt. What happens if persons help others to live, be honest, respect property of others, and help the many and refuse to harm others? The outcomes are maximized for life, health and the general welfare of the society. By comparing the outcomes of behaviors, versus the survivability of individuals and society, we establish the higher values of morality, again, least energy principles, the most efficient way to a good outcome. Morality is therefore a method of comparison, developed by inputting the output. People favor and behave according to those behaviors which have been shown by trial and error to promote life. They are the fruits of good actions, and we will know them. The wages of sin are death. The days of the righteous will be lengthened and those of the wicked shortened. It’s outcomes. By the same process we find out what the rules are about creating medical treatments, or understanding the laws of the universe, we find by comparing these outcomes, the higher laws. And it’s all the comparison process as the lowest common denominator of this, too. These can be done again and again, they are of necessity and value, recursive. Not only are these rules set up and created by the COMP, but they are, like dictionaries, maps, thesauri, indices, etc., also READ by the same process which created them!! One comparison process has and performs multiplicit actions.

14. By testing and checking behaviors of ourselves and others, against the moral laws, we develop our consciences. The legal laws are of the same, yet another form of a Method of Comparison. Yet again recursive. Anyone can do this and does. Our frontal lobe consciences are yet again a series of moral laws ingrained into us, against which we compare our actions and those of others. yet again, COMP.
Let us look at the animals. They do not have morals as we know them, although many have altruistic behaviors which can be considered within the range, that, is we can by comparison with our behaviors recognize them as beneficial to the species, by showing restraint in conflict, and in not killing the others, or by helping to give food to others. Yet they have no knowledge of these things, as they cannot speak, though they behave ‘as if” they are acting, corresponding/comparing to an altruistic, moral code, where the orphans are taken care of by others in the group, as yet another instance.

15. Let us take the story and metaphor of the Garden of Eden. Where humans learned to tell the difference between good and evil. Is this not the COMP in operation? That evil has resulted in bad outcomes, and they could recognize this. The first humans KNEW good and evil. And that meant, their comparison processors in their brains were doing those comparisons, making the recognitions, and comparing outcomes. At that point modern humans came about. At that point we find the brain/mind neurophysiological process and interface.

16. Let us look at children. They are simply told what to do. They cannot see the differences between good and evil. They simply learn by rote and positive and negative reinforcement how to behave. There is no reason involved to speak of. Their brains are not mature enough to vote, act responsibly, put themselves in other persons’ places, to walk in their shoes, plan for the future. In short, that cannot do higher level comparison processing. The outputs cannot yet become inputs to see the outcomes, the higher order abstractions taken from events in existence. But Jean Piaget in his studies of children’s mental and personality development HAS shown us that reasoning begins, albeit it simple, about age 12-14. At that point, near puberty, the child begins to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong on his own. He begins to judge what is good and evil. He is confirmed into the churches and many societies mark by rituals and ceremonies, this as the age where young people become more mature, entering into adulthood.

This correlates highly with the above. Output becomes input. The child begins to reason. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. This is simple logic, again based upon the comparison process. This is the recognition of identity, of matching of marked similarities.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Ergo, Socrates is mortal.

At this point, reasoning begins. It will often be faulty at first and requires a lot of training to avoid the known fallacies, but this maturity starts at about this time, and is socially recognized by puberty, change of status celebrations, etc.

But let us be clear, this is ALSO neurophysiological maturity onset, the beginning of the comparison process where output becomes input, and children can begin to recognize as adults the OUTCOMES of their behaviors and those of others. The conscience begins to be created. The self-organizing of the brain in the frontal lobes where the comparison process begins to do this. This is where neurophysiology impacts and continues to create mind. This is the mind/brain interface developing.

17. Comparing this to the animals, they cannot recognize much of this. They take food from others, and have little regard for others of their own species, stealing where they can. And they cannot see this higher order of things. They do not know good nor evil. They cannot make a recognition output become a comparison process input, either. The higher values, the higher abstractions are closed to them. They can recognize, but they cannot reason, they cannot see, they have no insight into, they cannot understand the higher abstractions. This marks a major difference between animals and normal humans. Although we do see some reasoning, and tool making, and other creative acts from time to time among the animals. These lower animal brain processes are not higher level abstractions, omnipresent as they are in humans.

Now let us compare that to the ignoratio, ignorationis problem, where persons, literally, DO NOT know, that they do not know. The dement which for any cause of dementia, who has lost the ability to realize that he is dementing, cannot know that he does not remember. Consider the right sided parietal strokes/injuries which result in neglect of the left side. When we hold up their left hands to their right visual fields, they do NOT know that is their left hand. Nor can they see anything to their left, either. They do NOT know their left sides, the syndrome of neglect. & unless they improve greatly, they may never fully recover this loss of mentation. Knowledge of self is reiterative comparison process.

Let us compare this to the child who does not reason, nor know logic. Let us compare this to the sociopath and narcissist who do not know how others feel, and have a near absence of concern about how they have hurt others, though they know if others have hurt them, they have no empathy for others. Let us compare this to many personality disorders who have no insights into the nature of their problems, because literally, they do NOT know, that they do NOT know. And why? Because their cortical cell processors cannot take an output and input it. The comparison processors are not working properly.

19. Now how can we further evaluate these people? The dements can’t figure out metaphors. They can’t understand “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. They respond to the question of what that means by saying, “the glass breaks”, or variations on that clearly uncomprehending statement. The narcissists cannot understand parables, or Aesop’s fables, or similes, or any kind of metaphors involving people, either. The comparison processors are NOT working at a level much higher than simple recognition. Something has been lost, as in frontal lobe damage, or something has never developed, either. It is, by its very nature, a problem with the comparison processes in the cortical cell columns. They cannot know good and evil, either. They have not gotten out of the Garden of Eden.

20. The implications for treatment of these disorders is clear and protean. There is cortical cell column dysfunction. Treatments then become an attempt, in the narcissist and sociopath, and delusional, to make them understand, show insights into how others feel. This can be done to some extent by exercises in how they think and act and how others think. But if the behaviors are too well established, the brain hard wiring too ingrained and highly set in its ways, there isn’t much chance for change. They have no insight. In children under the ages of 16-20, it’s often possible to intervene and begin to develop this higher reasoning, through education, training and therapy.

But in many, it can’t be changed, and certainly in cases of acquired dementias and brain injury, within 6 months of the injury, a good outcome is not likely if there has been minimal recovery of normal thinking. (More in Brain Hard Wiring article to come). They literally cannot know good versus evil, either. Their ability to handle the higher abstractions, to understand metaphors and fables, is also impaired, although training in these examples can help, if cooperative.

21. Let us take the problem of good and evil and do a comparison process on that. Many ask why evil was created? It damages people and the good is to be preferred. That can be a hard problem to solve, because if God created evil, is he not therefore the author of evil? After all, he created Satan and he knew Lucifer was going to go bad, did he not? But there is a simple solution using the COMP. How do we know the good? By the good outcomes, longer lives, better health, more domestic tranquility and peaceful, crime free societies with some measure of prosperity. Evil creates just the opposite, crime, drugs, diseases, disorganization, failure of essential services, severe grinding poverty, bad roads, etc. By their fruits you will know them. When we see the COMPARISON of the outcomes, then we can know what good and evil are. We can only know the good by comparing it with the evil outcomes, and vice versa. The good is known by comparison with the outcomes of the evil. Therefore, without evil, we could not know good, nor vice versa. And this explains why each is necessary to know the other. It’s very simple comparison process by the method of comparing outcomes. This is why good and evil both must necessarily exist.

This has been an important digression, but will return to the recursivity of the COMP now.

Just why this recursivity arises is simple to see. The universe around us is composed of stable elements: electrons, protons, atoms, elements, isotopes, water/carbon dioxide, etc. Trees, plants, rocks, bodies of water, etc. Each of these is seen again and again, the same recursivity we see in the COMP. It models by its innate recursivity because the universe itself is massively recursive. The same events occur again and again. The same quantum tunneling of the electrons which create the technology of the transistors is recursive. The same falling of the apple in a gravitational field, occurs again and again. The same orbiting of smaller bodies around larger ones. The radioactive decays occur again and again. The universe is composed of both simple and complex events which are recursive. and upon these stabilities the COMP calls up and reinforces the pattern recognition functions which are stored in the LTM, knowing they will be used again and again. The COMP has developed its unique functions, because it very closely mimics, models and follows the very nature of natural, repeated events. This is the basis of recognition. The very stability of the universe, as was related in “Depths within Depths…” shows this. The feedback loops, analogous to the “strange loop” of Hofstadter are but pieces of the vaster picture, the COMP.

Any new scientific finding which has been published must be confirmed by at least 2 other well done, carefully controlled studies to show that it’s valid. That is, its findings are existing and real. That anyone can find this recursive, real event, must be confirmed to show that it recurs in events in existence, again and again. The confirmations by using the scientific method, again, massive measurements and comparison methods, show this. The sciences find the stable, recursive phenomena, events in our universe, as an aspect of the comparison process of recognition, pattern recognition.

The other characteristic of the comparison process, about the closest a human phrase can be to that cortical phenomenon, are associations, relationship, similarities, matching, identifying, etc. All of these words are also comparison process words. There have been so many forms of the same word, it’s been missed. It has so surrounded itself by analogies, contrasts, antonyms, synonyms, and homonyms that it’s been disguised by the very complexity and wide usage this simple event has created. From the simple to the complex. The COMP is now seen for what it is, in all its complexity and many variations on a single theme, that is the musical version of it. The variations on the simple theme of the Coleoptera, all of them compared to each other and being seen, provable to be of a type, established by massive comparisons of each of the insects with each of the others. The same is true of the Scarabaeidae. Again, a biologist would see this, while others might miss it.

24. But think of this. Once we begin to compare the moral laws to the physical, scientific laws, to the legal laws, and then to the conscience, we see they are all of the same type. We compare our behaviors and actions to those of others, comparing to the moral laws, to derive meaning and decide if we are acting properly. We internalize those moral laws to create the conscience, by which we do the same thing. We extend those moral laws to events outside of us, find those patterns, and then create the physical laws, to which we refer in EXACTLY the same way as we did the moral laws, to see how the universe of events behaves. And then the legal laws, as adjuncts to the moral laws, all of the same type, the same variation on a single theme. We compare again and again, to figure out how things work and to predict events in nature and in the same way we compare again and again our actions to make sure they are moral & legal. They are of the same kind of thing. endlessly recursive, showing their origin in the COMP. All based at each point of laws, or morality, or legality, by comparing events to the standard of the law. And there is it. Again and again, endlessly, without limit of application. The comparison process points to itself, in time, eventually, inevitably, being the lowest common denominator of the higher cortical processes.

In the vast compendia of medical diagnoses, we see exactly the same thing. The History of the patient, being compared to what has been experienced and seen before. The physical examination of the patient, and even the massively complicated neurological exam, all are comparison processes, repeated again and again, and repeatable again and again because they are fundamentally, the COMP. The differential diagnoses, how the diagnoses compare to each other, and differentiate by comparing and contrasting most all known disease states and normal conditions. Again, massive, repeated, recursive comparison processing. It’s always been there. The forest has been missed because of the massive, virtually unlimited number of trees.

Again, the relativity, invariance theories of Einstein, have at their heart that there is NO absolute space or time. Anything to have meaning, must be compared to something else, be it physical, verbal descriptions, or measuring or both. The heart of Einstein’s relativity, that everything which can be measured, must be compared to set standards via measurement, is the comparison process, innately.

25. Note that Einstein’s relativity theory was not really mathematized. It was largely verbal, and he had to enlist the mathematical genius of Minkowski to formally mathematize his relativity. It was translated into a mathematical form. This again, is a clue to where his creativity came from, in short, the comparison process, in yet another of its multiplicit guises.

26. Mathematics, at its heart, is the comparison process, simply, provable, clearly. Take the simplest form of math, the counting. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … We see at once, the combinations of numbers, one after the other, the not infinite, but yet endlessness of the number line, which began with counting. Again, the COMP. We see at once that all numbers on this line have relationships to each other. That is, we can COMPARE the 2 to the 4, or the 4 to the 12, and derive simple mathematics of arithmetic. Once we see this, additions and subtraction are seen to be comparison process forms/methods, basically derived from comparisons. Multiplication and division are simply emergent phenomena based upon addition and subtraction done by 4 threes are 12, for instance. They are created by the output of addition, becoming an input for another output, that is addition becomes multiplication and subtractions becomes division. From the Simple, counting down or up, or instead using division and multiplication as short cuts. Least energy processes, you see? Instead of counting up and down to understand the differences among numbers we MEMORIZE the arithmetic tables. So to save more adding we MEMORIZE the organized, orderly table of 7 X 7, 7 X 8, 7 X 9, for example, to save time. Least energy principles (LEP) driving the recognition of multiplication and division, again. Powers of 10 or 2, the squares, cubes, exponents, are the next successive emergent phenomena, skills/methods upon which we can calculate and save time. Overall the the comparison process combined with the LEP which gives value and meaning to the methods of arithmetic.

To summarize: counting, counting up, adding, multiplication, powers of 2, cubes, etc., exponentials, powers of 10 scientific notations.
Counting, counting down, subtracting, division, square and cube roots, logarithms and exponents.

At each state we see the output becoming the input to create the next level of ordering, again and again. Largely the same it true of the rest of mathematics, including geometries, spherical, analytical (which provides VISUAL meaning and uses, also. What we can see, we can deal with in yet another way. Essentially the difference between Schwinger’s massive computations versus Feynman diagrams, the latter preferred due to LEP value of his creative output.

Additions can be added to additions. Numbers can be divided again and again. We can multiply multiplications and yet again, endlessly. We can recombine the recombinations. In each new term, new method, lies within in the veriest Song Without End, the comparison process which is the parent form.

Geometry is simply more of the same. What is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter? Pi, simply. The ratio of pi. We use this to create an entire spherical geometry, based upon going from the simple to the complex. The ratios of right triangle legs to each other is simply trigonometry, using the trig functions. This is how the legs of a right triangle all COMPARE to each other.

The same it true for basic algebra, which is simply the mathematics of ratios and proportions, that is multiplying and dividing. And in teaching algebra, we start with the simple arithmetic and go from there, to the more complex do we not? And is this not the method of teaching, of learning, or showing, of demonstration? We can teach how to teach, can we not? We can learn how to learn. We can know knowing. And the COMP thus must necessarily underlie all of education and teaching. We learn by doing, showing, demonstration, by imitating and mimicking, all of them comparison processes.

And then geometry and trig, from the simple to the complex. Again, the same modus operandi, the same comparison process, repeated endlessly as we can measure and compare shapes endlessly. Just as we can count again and again, without end. Just as the number line extends without limit. Le Chanson San Fin.

27. Discovery comes from this as well. Discovery is the finding of something new. But how can we know/recognize discovery? This shows what is going on. The comparison process in our CCC’s is constantly looking to make sense of the world. It’s an ACTIVE process. When it hears words, it tries to make sense of them, occ. making mistakes, which types often show the comparison process at work. We hear what we want to hear, again, actively seeking to make sense of the world around us. We often miss making discoveries because we ignore those events which might upset our world view, which we have constructed. It even creates by this drive, the pareidolias. And neatly explains those as well.

Within the rainbow, as has been shown very clearly in
http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

28. It is the very simple which illustrates and enlightens about how the very complex was created. Newton found the rainbow using a glass prism through which he directed a sun light beam. He saw a spectrum of sunlight on the wall, which he at once recognized as the rainbow. By making this connection using the comparison process, we can see inside his mind’s creativity. We can think about thinking. What does this sequence of light and colors I see here remind me of? And he realized it was the rainbow. The creative instant. The exact creative point of his empirical introspection which the COMP allows us to see. That was his discovery. He had explained, understood, recognized what the rainbow was. The refraction of sunlight.

We understand by our experiences the thrill of discovery from this simple event. We understand the appeal and thrill of ALL discoveries and novelties, because of this commonality. The events which on the Internet “go viral” by their novelty, the punch line in a joke, the curiosity which gets a dopamine boost out of seeing something new.

I recall when my oldest son had found a lizard and brought it into the house in a glass jar. “Daddy, Daddy!! look what I found!!” And in this tiny event we once again see a universe in a grain of sand, as Blake wrote about and so well understood. Because this is basic discovery. And the release of dopamine by that recognition, which also underlies discovery. Newton and my son both had the same recognition, a discovery, which using the least energy principle, brought together by combining two apparently disparate events, that they were the same. Newton had found something new. A child had found something new. Both had made discoveries. Both got the dopamine boost. Because creativity, discovery, curiosity and recognition are all forms of the same process, the COMP.

29. And by this means, the comparison process re-inforces itself. So the discoveries want to be made, again and again. Can we not then more completely understand how the COMP works to reinforce itself? And upon this basis an entire framework of our emotional system can be created. and also explains humor, curiosity, and even those videos and images and jokes which on the Internet “go viral”, multiplying, copying, replicating themselves over, again and again. Reinforced by the “look what I found” dopamine boost.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

And this reproduction, this copying, multiplication, replication, duplication all are the comparison process. Because we recognize near identity because the two match each other, do they not? And the basis of copying and recognizing events as copies necessarily uses the COMP to make the re-cognition. We can duplicate a duplication, copy a copy, add to an addition. Plants and animals and living systems can reproduce themselves. Our bodies can develop limbs by growing them. Plants branch out their limbs and growing branches, and their roots in analogous ways. So does the living tree of life show all those branchings and developments of new species over time. It’s all understandably by the same source, the COMP. The same, simple recursivity of the universe. Do you see? It unites most every event into a unified whole. It is unifying theory/model. That is the power of the comparison process and why it has evolved and is the basis of thinking.

31. It’s previous been shown that the COMP underlies decoding and translation of languages one into the other. It also underlies developing of new models/theories which explain what’s going on in the universe. The COMP is a universal decoder, from cryptograms, to lost languages of the Rosetta stone, the cuneiforms, and Linear B, to translating languages every day wherever that is needed. By comparing a single phrase in one language, to another, we translate, and understand. the comparison process, again and again.

At the root therefore of modeling and understanding language must lie the comparison process. We start at the simple and move to the complex as our guideline. The child begins to babble, thus creating the vocalizations which can be reworked into language. The babbling, like the suck and withdrawal movements are built in. The speech initiation centers working in the frontal. interhemispheric cortices. We know of those, because if those cortical sites are damaged by trauma or stroke, the patient becomes aphasic and cannot speak. With some recovery, language generation begins again, but never as fluent and spontaneous as before.

But the vocalizations are built in. His larynx/voice box/vocal cords are built in. The infant who babbles shows us this. Slowly, steadily by reinforcement and teaching and imitation by the mother, these babblings become “ma-ma.” Simple, basic, repetitive, syllabic. The roots of language, from the built in language acquisition devices (LAD), the cortical cell columns in the left hemisphere usually, plus the medial interhemispheric speech drive centers in the frontal lobes. This is Chomsky’s LAD. From “ma-ma” the infant is re-inforced. But that too is built in as the dopamine releaser. We see how children do this. They hear a word and they go wild with it. Repeating it again and again, reinforcing it into working memory, the LTM. This is how they learn. God help us if we say a swear word and they hear it and say it again and again around others!!

This is the LAD, the comparison process, working from the babble center which drives the system to work. Reinforced by the dopamine and the innate desire, purposefulness, goal oriented, drive to understand built into the CCC’s and expressed by the comparison process. From this simple basis each language is built up from speech, NOT the written word. It explains the idiolalias as well. We start with the simple infant speech and build up the rest of the complex language until we get to the most complex of them all, professional speech and writing. Then we add the written word, as the secondary reflection of the language development, as a higher system, based upon an output becoming input —-> output. Writing then feeds back into the entire system via the COMP, to create higher and higher categories, better memory systems(books and libraries) and more complexity and capabilities. Using the comparison process the entire structure and development of each language can be shown to be generated from a few simple rules. That of the ‘ma-ma” reduplication of simple syllables, up to complex polysyllabic languages, just as we develop arithmetic from the simple additive number line.

It’s the same process, do we see that? It’s the COMP driving it on. It’s ancient going back 100,000′s of years. We see the hyoid bone reflecting the existence of the larynx, the “voice box” in the earliest humans and the Neanderthals and probably Homo erectus. Because of this, we know the same cortical structures which we have, have their ancestry there as well, because Neanderthalensis is FAR, far older than we, 100,000′s of years older.

By making these known comparisons we can discover a great deal. We see the driving, purposeful force of the comparison process working in our cortex to create meaning from words. Reinforcing discovery, creativity as recognition. But this is only the beginning of the power of the COMP, going from the simplest form to the most complex.
The evidences and the substantiations of the comparison process’ use and existence have been addressed very well in previous articles. The essentials of these will be repeated here for emphasis and extension.

The COMP is a an organizing process built in. It will spontaneously seek to understand and order as has been shown above. Even school children on the playground over time will seek to order their play by new rules they create. Societies are also stratified into classes by this same process. Even the great ape societies do much the same, to show this is not unique to humans. Dogs, elephants, and other social, herd animals, even the birds in their flocks and fishes and amphibians do much the same.

34. The Comparison process can order and organize the brain along the lines of similarities, recognition, identity and language. The organization of our dictionaries, thesauri, indices, the pagination of books, and addressing of sites on maps are all aspects of the comparison process in action. This has been previous shown in

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1
about 3/4 of the way down using right menu bar cursor, starting with:
“When the Rosetta stone was found….” and continues into part 3

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

35. In the organization of the Taxonomies of millions of species the comparison process is at the heart and core of it. Having done a great deal of biology, esp. with identifications of the animals, plants and the Coleoptera, where we simply compare and compare and compare again the beetles we find, and organize them by visual inspection and type, and recognize same when we see them again, it’s at once obvious what is going on. Every single species can be observed carefully for its characteristics, then compared to the Kingdom, phylum, order, family and genus and species of hierarchies where it belongs. It’s not only the creator of this order, but we can also read it by comparison, (just as we read a dictionary, index, or map), to find out where EACH of those species belongs, exactly. The same process, universal and ubiquitous. The Comparison Process. Most all of the millions of species have been organized and identified and re-identified, endlessly, in this way. Mathematics cannot but be a handmaiden in the description of these taxonomies, and cannot at present symbolically describe these taxonomies, as it cannot describe medical methods, disease conditions, differential diagnoses and treatment protocols and testing of complex human living systems.

In most all of our dictionaries, thesauri (synonyms/antonyms; homonyms, indices, maps and street addresses, paginations and lists, we find the same. See:

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/
Check about 40% of the way down using the right slide bar

That’s 100′s of millions of examples of the comparison process at work, alone, every day in our lives. To which many 1000′s of species and words are being added yearly, without limit. Le Chanson Sans Fin.

In the organization of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of stellar development and kinds of stars, mostly the same has been done, as most all known stars can be placed on this organizational diagram with respect to comparing their colors, sizes, composition and ages. It’s clearly most all COMP in action. A similar system has been created to organize the types of galaxies, too. 100,000′s more examples to add to the above. The galaxies are also organized along COMP methods.

Regarding the periodic table of the elements, each of these has been classified in a continuum of atomic numbers beginning with 1, that is, hydrogen-1 atom, and with adding more protons, and neutrons, the entire systems has been built up. In addition, comparing the chemical characteristics has resulted in families of element being grouped together, which was Mendeleev’s important insight. The noble gases, the calcium series, the ferrous metals, the alkali metals, the halogens, the rare earths, the platinum group metals, again, all comparison process created on a number line of the atomic number. From the simple, to the complex, once again, organized and recognized and identified by the COMP working endlessly.
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) of organizing all known chemical compounds, both organic and inorganic has proceeded upon the same basis. At last count this was about 34 millions of chemical compounds, all of them confirmations of the COMP at work.

36. The organization of the kinds of rocks as compared to their types, is just more of the same in geology. The organization of the movements of the earth’s surface upon the basis of plate tectonics is yet another example. The basic, simple process of seafloor rises of spreading and upwelling, creating continental drift; subduction destroying the same seafloor created by seafloor upwelling, and great earthquakes and volcanoes as the rock thrusts down into the magma layers, where the lighter rock melts and rising up to create inland volcanoes; the drifting of the continents and oceanic floor over hotspot plumes which are surprisingly stable; and at last the rifting zones on land, esp. in East Africa and the various kinds/types of faults accompanying this continental drift. A complex system, as it’s impossible to predict where this huge interacting system will be in millions of years, because it’s non-linear, yet described in great detail by verbal comparison processes, from the simple characteristics to worldwide. And cartooning and visual, but clearly NOT mathematical, but descriptive in the main.

The comparison process is ubiquitous in describing, measuring, making sense of our world through its organizing, self organizing and ordering means. It creates predictive control by recognizing these patterns, and then uses those events to create technologies, as well, stable because they reflect stabilities in our universe, which arise from what we call natural laws and the consistent recurrence of those processes and stabilities. It consistently acts to govern and create order. The moral laws have been created by observing patterns in behaviors and noting those which results in bad outcomes in terms of survival. By their fruits you will know them.

37. In the sciences the method of comparison is widely used in all areas to compare outcomes of treatments, or other methods in terms of developing a better understanding of what is going on.

http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/experiments.htm

37. Most everywhere we look, there is the COMP. In one of the most important principles in physics, the least energy principle, which according to the “McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, states that the LEP has proven to be able to solve even those problems which are intractable by other means. It has many names, the minimalist principle, the least action principle, the least free energy principle, again, the SAME multiple forms of the comparison process methods. It’s essential to understand this principle, and has been discussed before in detail. That which is least energy will prevail by the rule of 72, the compound interest formula, which also drives competition in the markets and in the evolution of life and development of societies. It’s a general principle which compares, again, outcomes, in this case, which processes/methods use the LEAST energy to get to the goal. Those are favored. Again, COMP

Occam’s Razor by simple comparison can be shown to be yet another form of the comparison process. It states that the simplest model/hypothesis which explains the pertinent data with the least number of new hypotheses/ideas, is very likely the right one. It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is the LEP, which is also based upon the COMP. It’s everywhere, disguised by the complexity it creates & hides itself. Subtle, yet real.

38. Taking this further, the traveling salesman problem is of this type. Which is the route passing by all of the destinations which must be visited which gives the shortest route in the least amount of time, with the best work at each site? Again, this was solved by the ants and the bees at least 100 M years ago or more, and perhaps by the termites even earlier. It has been found to be, of course, a least energy principle system, showing the ubiquity and value of it. By comparing different routes to food by the ants laying down pheromones, where the shortest route gets traveled more and the pheromones get denser and more noticeable. “Observe the wisdom of the ant.” To the honey bees which recalls which routes to the flowers were faster and gave more honey, and comparing the lengths of different routes based upon a very simple algorithm, “go to the next nearest nectar source” they solved the problem simply to about a 75% optimum level. Again, Comparison processing by the ants and bees. Comparing outcomes. Again, LEP.

These traveling salesman solutions have been applied again and again to deliveries of the UPS, FEDEX, and other related systems worldwide, saving huge amounts of money, time and resources, every day they are used.

39 Creativity of all sorts has also been discussed before in the articles in many occasion. But suffice it to write once more, creativity is a LEP which comes about by comparing at least 2 events/idea/memories, sensory inputs, in any combination which gives a result of value/meaning. Darwin and Wallace did this by comparing the plants and animals on isolated isles in the Galapagos and Indonesia, found massive similarities among the species there, which simply, and conclusively shows that species evolved from species previously existing. It was both a recognition and creativity.

When Newton created his mathematics to describe motions of objects and orbits of planets, it saved a LOT of time. Each orbit of the planets could now be encoded in a simple equation, whereas before they were complicated sets of data. He simplified with his laws, the complicated to the simple. He saved a LOT of time for all those following him. and when the newer data came in, those were compared to the old, yet again, revising orbits and learning more. Again, output became input, and far more precise orbital data eventually led to the “elements of orbit” methods in use today. Comparison process all of it, from the measuring to the creation of a newer, more accurate method than Keplerian ellipses.

40. Have previously discussed to finalize this article, about the skills and methods used by professional writers, composers of music, those of craftsmen and even those who create newer and better computer programs, the systems analysts which give our computers greater and greater capabilities with more efficient use of computer time and outputs. Essentially, the difference between an amateur and a professional is the latter has a whole series of methods/skills based upon constant use of the COMP to figure out simpler, more capable methods to do the same tasks again and again. They create, in effect, more hierarchies of methods which are faster, give a better output, and more capabilities.

Consider Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Chopin three of the best, most lyrical, most popular classical composers of the romantic period. Each of their music is at once identifiable by its sound, phrasings and characteristics, is it not? And because of this each uses a unique style, we call it, to create/compose the music. Significantly each of those styles is created by their special skills which should be identifiable as creative methods using the comparison process. It should then be possible, among creative composers to create more music which sounds a great deal like those 3 composers. And it should be possible, using the methods of creativity innate in the COMP to create 4-5 new symphonies by Tchaikovsky and his ballets as well, full of lyricism, originality and remarkable tunes he w3as so capable of doing. By recognizing that STYLE is in fact created by comparison process methods, as seen above, it should be also possible to re-create more Grieg and even Chopin.

By extension, more Mancini, more Beatles, more ELO and so forth, without limit. Any dead composer, or living could also be by computer methods able to have that very original musical output analyzed for its peculiar, identifying styles of composition, duplicated, now that we KNOW the basis of creativity being the COMP. This would lead to a modern Renaissance and output of musical creativity which is unmatched in the past.

41. But suppose, in addition to this, we could find out exactly how, using the COMP that the most creative computer programmers find their new, original programs and devices? Suppose we could build THAT human creativity into a computer. Imagine what that computer, since it works a great deal faster than humans, could do, could compose new lines of programming creatively, far, far faster than humans. Would this not increase progress in the field?

And if for computer programming, once the methods are found, could it not be extended to writing Chopinesque pieces, to Quincy Jones and Elton John, or anyone else? Would this not create a renaissance as well?

What then if the same principles of creativity which are now known to be due to the comparison process in the sciences, could be also programmed into a computer, say for genetic research? Would this not create an accompanying renaissance of growth and progress in the sciences?

Now let us us add another input. The quantum computer is potentially trillions of times faster than the silicon based chip. In other words, it can do in a few minutes what would take using silicon chips 1000′s of millions years to do, or potentially faster. Combine THOSE capabilities with the capabilities of creative computers for composing Grieg, to computers capable of duplicating the outputs of few more Einsteins, Schrodingers and Edisons. Would not this revolution then dwarf anything seen in the past, by a vast amount?

Is this not part of the singularity spoken of by futurists?

42. Yet this is what can happen buy using the comparison process. In order to understand our minds, we must understand more of the universe. This scientific knowledge is then fed back into our brains so we can better understand our neurophysiology and our minds. And on and on, all made possible by the recursive, reiterative nature of the comparison process and compound interest formula. This is the potential, capability and promise of the knowledge based upon the comparison process. This is what can happen if the principles and this new understanding of the brain/mind interface are applied. A renaissance in the sciences and the arts and in every other field, which has never been seen before, vastly outstripping what has come before, as well. Interstellar travel, quantum technologies never even imagined before.

43. Consider these facts. The universe is a very, very huge place and enormously complex. Our brains are very tiny compared to all of that. So tiny, that in fact almost everything we can imagine can be done eventually, as long as we do not directly try to violate a physical law. But, consider, can we not fly by hot air balloons, by gliders like planes and hang gliders? Can we not fly using parasails attached to boats and other moving craft? What of jets, prop planes and even rockets? We can fly in huge numbers of ways, too.

Consider yet another input. The Rhizobacteria can do at soil temperature what we can only do efficiently using 100′s of atmospheres of pressure and 1000 degrees of temperature. They can fix nitrogen in the atmosphere combining with with H2O to create nitrates/ammonium, the very bottleneck of growing plants and food sources. A tine bacterium in the roots of the beans, can do what we cannot. This may show that what is impossible for us, in most cases, is hardly impossible at all.

Consider that the English robin uses a pair of atoms in a molecular cage, and entangles them using quantum effects, in fact quantum technology to detect with great precision the magnetic fields of the earth so that it can navigate. We cannot do this with even a box the size of a portable toilet turned on its side, using superconductive methods and liquid helium, too, what the robin does at room temps.

Consider that the simple enzyme does at room temperature, what we must do with far, far vaster amounts of energy and input to do at all.

44. Can we then conclude this? That living systems can achieve far, far more than we can, and what is impossible for us, is therefore possible for living systems? That in fact, whatever we can think of in this far, far vaster universe, more immense and unlimited that we can even imagine, is in fact possible? That for us, all that we can think of and then again, is more possibilities than we can even imagine? Quantum mechanic states that not much is impossible, just highly unlikely. And we know that living system can make the virtually impossible highly likely even certain.

Everything may well then become possible, well past what we can even imagine. This is the universe we live in, and to reach that state, we have only to use our understanding of our brains/minds to create it. And using creativity from computer programming to create ever more creativity in the arts and sciences, that we can create anything we imagine.

Just this caveat, use it well and use it wisely. The universe is very likely unlimited for us, as unlimited as our comparison processes are also.

Unlimited creativity is promised by the comparison process. Unlimited creativity can very likely be created by computers as well. Using quantum computers then creates unlimited creativity within a very short time. And anything can be done. All problems can be solved, beyond our imaginations. This is the future coming, fast approaching. Use well your days.

Let a revelation in understanding become a Kuhnian revolution.

Complex Systems, Boundary Events, and Hierarchies

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

“Mathematics must make great advances in order to understand complexity.” —Stanislaw Ulam

Have frequently mentioned and discussed the Tree of Life of the immense taxonomies of the living millions of species and viruses, the Plate Tectonics Model in geology, and Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, the biochemical receptor sites concepts, before, and how mathematics does not describe very much of verbal statements, no poems, nor much else which is complex systems. This will create a better understanding of why this occurs and the place the Comparison Process takes in these events and ideas. Have also discussed these events in “Depths within Depths” as well as the “Continua and the Dualities” articles It’s now time to show how more of it fits together.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

Sort of a biological field trip format again, beginning with something odd in north Phoenix which puzzled me at the time, and from this simple cameo can come a basic new model of how the universe is organized as is our brain cortex and how that works to understand complexity of all sorts.

On north 51st Ave. in Phoenix there is an odd event there. The road jogs to the west, without much warning. Just why that should be was interesting enough, but the deeper meaning of it becomes clear once we begin to think about boundaries of the macroscopic world, geometries and related subjects. Our generation is the first to have enough information to try to figure out how things work on a deeper level that has come before. The science have become so specialized that it’s hard for many in those fields to begin to understand each other. Or as has been so comically said, “We are now learning more and more about less and less until we will soon know almost everything about almost nothing.”

The hugely expensive search for the Higgs boson, supposedly found for about $15 Billions in new equipment and running costs, cannot be confirmed by a different team because it’s so outrageously expensive using current technologies to do so. These are the Exponential Barriers discussed before. This is crisis in physics, too. We cannot afford to do science this way, either. These are boundary events, just like has been found and so well discussed in Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” These show the structure/function limits and capabilities of current methods, systems and understanding.

See sections 6, 10, 11, the Exponential barrier.

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

This is how those unexpected findings create a world change in our views of most which is around us, in short, a massive epistemological change which is ongoing currently. It’s what Kuhn so brilliantly wrote about and about which we are still mining and learning more to this day, some 50 years later.

Thinking about 2 dimensional flat planes versus the surfaces of spheres gets us to an understanding. The surveying methods used to make maps and lay out our grid patterns of roads are based upon plane geometry, that is flat, 2 dimensional lines and the surfaces connecting those. So if we try to impose a flat plane on a round one, tho of great size, so that the roundness is at once visible, what do we get? We get a mismatch, a problem.
Try taking a flat piece of paper and wrapping it around an orange. We can’t do it. It makes folds in the paper. The two surfaces are NOT commensurable. This is the problem we get when trying to impose a flat surface grid pattern on a round surface. And that’s why 51st Ave. had to jog, to make up for this imposition and it does it all along Bell Road for miles. The longitudinal lines approach each other slowly, and if the system is not carefully adjusted every few miles to that fact, the road will need to be adjusted over to make up for it. This is a mismatch. The systems do NOT compare.

If we think about that carefully, then we realize that it could have been proven easily centuries ago that the world was not flat. Because if the world was flat, then there would have been no mismatch. Because it’s round, as every surveyor of large areas knows, the baseline MUST be adjusted. For centuries that’s been done without realizing it was going on. They just ignored it, and adjusted it. Because map making of considerable accuracy has been going on since 2800 BC, esp. in Egypt, they no doubt saw this in their very long northwards going baselines and also corrected for it. It meant the world was round, just like the sun and moon, but it took Western Europe until the time of Cristoforo Colon to figure it out again. Careful, accurate surveying using long line of sights in clear air could have established this fact in flatter regions 1000′s of years ago. It’s as much a cultural and human mental state observation as it is a scientific fact.

In the same way, just these mismatches between the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, which put the planets in perfectly circular orbits, had to be corrected by adding epicycles, as Kuhn so well points out. Because ALL planetary orbits HAD to be perfect circles, therefore they could accept little circles to correct the measurements. As Kuhn pointed out, the epicycles approximated the ellipse, too.

Moving onward to Kepler, he saw much the same mismatch. and using Tycho Brahe’s extremely accurate measurements of the orbit of Mars, found a significant discrepancy from circularity of 8 arc minutes. That discrepancy justified and created the Keplerian elliptical orbits model and a much better and easier way of calculating planetary orbits. His creativity was a Least Energy solution.

With better measurements, it was discovered that the orbits were ALSO in 3 dimensions and the same mismatches between planar ellipses were found with the modern figures. In fact, Mercury circles the sun in a complicated rosetting orbit. So “elements of orbit” are now used which are better matches, but in fact, in the long run, the measurements of the orbits of the planets are such that they cannot be predicted more than about 50K years into the future without having real loss of accuracy. Prediction fails due to variations of the orbit.

In fact, the solar system is a complex system, not a series of easily computed orbits. If Jupiter were suddenly taken out, the inner planets steadily would spiral into the sun. The problem is that of the N-body problem, which mathematics no computers can solve, because it’s simply too complex to do so. Gleick points this out in his book, “Chaos”.

This greater overview is the problem of the sciences today. They cannot understand complex systems using linear mathematics, algebras and logics. There is a huge mismatch between predictions and outcomes. For an N-body problem of N= or >3, there is no clear solution possible. For interactions of 8 major planets in our solar system, plus the asteroids, the solution becomes of astronomical complexity, (pun intended) and unsolvable.

Now consider the problems of the some 25K genes’ interactions in the human body. It’s impossible to solve, and adding the many thousands of other compounds such as foods and gene products, it becomes even more impossible to solve.

Consider the complexities of the single eukaryotic cell. It contains many thousands of compounds in it, all interacting, many organelles such as nucleus, ribosomes, cell membranes, mitochondria (plus chloroplasts in plants), etc., that the N zooms up to the number of molecules interacting which is a very huge number, also. Essentially, modern mathematics cannot practically, or intrinsically DEAL with those complexities. Effectively the way is closed. The doors to understanding are shut. What are we to do?

The traveling salesman problem was a deep problem for mathematics for years. As the number of places to visit increases, the complexity of the problem gets harder and harder. No computer can solve it, either, even by the brute force approach. It was very expensive for any kind of large delivery system to just guess as to which routes to use for their multiple deliveries. Theoretically they could not approach within about 20% of what they figured was the most efficient route, nor could they compute it.

But how was this solved? “Observe the wisdom of the ant.”

Ants and bees had solved that problem 100 Million years ago, or before. And they did it with a very simple algorithm and process. The bees went to the nearest flower, took nectar, then went to the next nearest flower, took nectar, and after doing that several times their memories, in the neural networks we call their minute brains, collections of a million neurons, achieved a 75% solution of the problem, consistently. Ants did it by laying down a pheromone trace which they could follow, and sequentially the most efficient (least energy principle) route was created by following the pheromone trace that was the most traveled on, because it was also the fastest. Then the line got straighter and straighter to the nest, as well.
Using computer simulation of these two strategies, even better solutions to the problem were eventually found. The UPS and FedEX deliveries are now about 80% of the theoretical maximum, using these methods first found by the ants, bees and termites, perhaps as much as 100-200 of millions of years ago!!

And just how was this done? Complex systems solved it, those found in the bee and ant brains, and trial and error. Complex systems of millions of interacting neurons out computed and out performed any computer we’ve ever had. This was humbling to say the least, but it shows the immense power of complex systems to do what humans cannot do, given time and understanding. This insect solution has in the meantime saved the national and international delivery systems many 1000′s of extra miles/day and 1000′s of hours of less travel time per city, too. It’s a least energy principle in action. Again, the COMP. Comparing the outcomes of the traveled routes for the best one, the least energy solution.

And how did the observing scientists find this out? The same way Von Frisch figured out how the bees told the other workers to find the flowers yielding nectar. HE COMPARED what they were waggling, pointing and buzzing, etc., to where the bees were going and decoded the system they were using. The comparison process, in fact. It was the same way the ant method was decoded, and comparing where the bees went to find the fastest route. Same method was used to understand the ant pheromone system, the comparison process. The same method Champollion and Young used to decode the Rosetta stone. The same method used to translate and decode ANYTHING written, or any event. The Comparison process.

That is the key point. And it can be easily proven to be the case, again and again. Let’s take plate tectonics. This is a complex system, which cannot be solved by mathematics. Nor can it be created by same. The description of it is almost all verbal and visual. Cartooning has been used to show how it works and what the land world looked like 100′s of millions of years ago. Wec an look backwards in time to recreate this because of the remnant geological observations which allow it to be pieced back together in many cases, although it’s large;y approximate. All of the some 15 plates (16 if the East African plate is considered one, as it’s splitting off from the African plate) are all interacting with the others. This creates an impossible to solve 3-D, roughly spherical, N-body problem.

Essentially, the parts of the tectonic theory are the upwelling, sea floor spreading zones, the same on land from the Dead Sea to the south down the center of the Red Sea, inland at the Afar triangle and southwards to the Rift Valley zone of East Africa, too. East Africa is splitting apart. Africa split off from west Asia about 20 M years ago. There are a great number of plates. They are upwellings, subductions, faultings in complex patterns and so forth. The subduction zones often create volcanoes where the plate edge goes into the magma layers, is melted and the lighter rock rises up again, to create volcanoes. There is no center of the plate movements. There is no privileged space. Everything is pushing against everything else. It’s impossible to predict with any certainty how things will look in millions of years, because the computations can’t deal with all of these complexities. The plate tectonics model is a complex system.

The same is true of the weather. Of the stock markets. Of the economy, of social systems. The same is true of trying to understand the human brain and the complexities of each of the millions of known species, let alone all of the extinct ones. As Stanislaw Ulam stated, “Calling the universe non-linear is like calling biology the study of all non-elephants.” The problem is everywhere. 99.9+% of the universe’ events are alinear, complex systems.
So how could we have even developed plate tectonic model?

By studying, looking, thinking creatively, describing/measuring to find the patterns of sea floor spreading, of subduction, melting, etc., leading to volcanoes’ creations and eruptions, of the fault line movements, and so forth. How can we predict when a volcano will erupt? Or a fault line will rupture causing a great quake? We can’t. It’s a complex system.

And this is the key, clearly we have developed a coherent description about earth surface movements. It was done largely by using the comparison process which can handle alinearity. The same comparison process in the bird brains and other brains, which can handle complicated movement problems of flight and highly skilled activities and movements of human beings, viz. alinear systems, totally without mathematics.

Even more complex systems are found in the human body. We have a high incentive to understand these complex systems. Those are the very serious issues and problems of living and survival and reducing suffering, and increasing function. And we have it, the huge corpus of medical conditions and information built up over the last centuries of observation and study. It’s called anatomy, physiology, medical pathologies and the study of those, the differential diagnosis and the treatments. It’s almost all verbal. It describes almost entirely verbally what is going on, with some assistance from math and measurements. It uses observations, history, physical examinations, and then careful reasoning to figure out what’s going on and then bases the treatment on the outcomes of scientific studies, (the Method of Comparison) to find the best possible, current treatment methods as well as to continue to explore and find better ones. And it works. It’s verbal, visually descriptive and the examination, history, and differential diagnoses CANNOT be mathematized at all. Perhaps in the future, but perhaps not at all for most apps. Mathematics is an assistant, but NOT even a major player in the ways in which we diagnose and treat the most serious medical conditions. This fact has been overlooked for some time and it’s time to set the record straight. Mathematics alone is incapable of making the diagnoses and treatment protocols. Almost all of it is Verbal description We use verbal descriptions from comparison process methods throughout.
This is the key to understanding. Comparison processes CAN handle and deal with complex systems. Logic, math, and linear methods cannot do that task very well. How can this be? And the way to understanding it is again by using the comparison process to see what is going on.

Hierarchies have been discussed here a number of times. The massive taxonomies of all known living species, living and extinct. There is the physical reductionist method, starts with particles, then goes to atoms, then to molecules/compounds, then to chains of carbon atoms, organic and biochemistries. The simple to the complex method. Then there is a discontinuity, and we go from single cells, to multicellular living species and the larger multicellular systems with organs in them. Finally we get to neural networks, then larger collections of same in the birds, mammals, then to primates, and then to higher apes, of which we are a closely, the latter with 100,000′s of cortical cell columns, previously addressed and described, which underlie how our brains work.

Boundary events are those events which occur unexpectedly. These are the surprises we find when we carefully investigate, examine, observe, (that is, COMPARE) events around us. Flight is just such an event. We see this massively in our biological world, but not elsewhere. We see spiders using their silk to create flight in the winds. We see the maple and other seeds which spin and take off in the wind. We observe seeds surrounded by a great deal of fluff in huge numbers of species of plants, from dandelion, to cottonwood seed, to Kapok, and even the fluff surrounded seeds of the Chorisia tree, with its incredible flowers. Those can fly in the wind. This is a boundary event.

It’s seen with sugar gliders and flying squirrels. And in its most developed form with millions of insect species, 1000′s of birds and 100′s of bats, not to exclude the ancient birds and flying reptiles, the Pteranodons and the incredible colored, downy species. But how do these species actually fly? The dynamics of gliding were well worked out by the Wright Brothers and many since, but true, flexible wing gliding and powered wing flapping is a boundary event which creates the most successful and widely varied life on the earth, the insects. No one knows how this works, except that it does. Again, a complex system. How can any computer simulate a changing wing dynamic? It’s beyond math. Using complicated 3 dimensional photography it can be studied and perhaps some understanding can be created by those observations and study. But so far, little else has helped. There are many theories, of course, but none of these works on most species which fly. It’s simply too complex to figure.

Boundary events are events which mark the transition from one hierarchy to another. They may be small, or major and hardly trivial. In the tree of life, the Taxonomies, they are those which mark the creation of legs which allow animals to live on land. This transition is also marked by lungs, and skin changes which can conserve water. another boundary event would be the creation of sex, that is male/female in a single species, in all the myriad ways in which this can be done.

Binocular vision, hands, and a complicated cortex are what marked the change from primate to higher apes. A boundary event which created humans were upright posture, which freed the hands, and better enabled long distance sight. Another would be opposable thumbs. Another would be complex speech and vocal cords. The last of course, is the creation of human consciousness, similar to that of the great apes, but vastly amplified by the greatly enlarged human cortex, those 100,000′s of cortical cell columns which give us the capacity to process large amounts of information. Color vision would also be included. Each of these were unexpected and found.

In cultures, esp. in the sciences, boundary events are the discovery of radioactivity, as an aspect of elements’ isotopes. This created an enormous change in physics and everything that has touched including nuclear power, nuclear medicine, dating methods and so forth. If we review “Depths in Depths” cited above, we again see those boundary events which marked major changes in the sciences and our understanding of the unlimited complexity of the universe of events within biological systems and outside of them.
Events change, the rules change at the boundaries of the hierarchies. When the first hydrogen atoms were formed early in the universe’ history, it was the creation of the compounds and molecules from these new kinds of elements and atoms. When the first supernovae exploded, they created 1000′s of new isotopes among the elements higher than carbon atoms, too, and these were flung out into space. From those eventually came living systems. Again, boundary events.

When the massive carbon chains were created using hydrogen and hydroxyl groups, etc., this again marked a boundary event, we call organic chemistry, which then became biochemistry and living cells. From there it became multicellularity with complicated, specialized cells, and so forth. The creation of the worms, with their many, repeated, segmented bodies, each of which could create legs, and were capable of massive specialization, eventually resulting in the notochord and then the backbone, still segmented, resulting eventually in fish, amphibians, marking the transition from marine to land life, to reptiles, birds, and then mammals. Humans are still segmented animals. We need only look at our backbones, those repeated segments derived from adding on again and again, simple parts. Even the dermatomes of the skins and nerves show these segmentations throughout.

In cultures, boundary events are marked by new religions, new belief and political systems, and the sciences. Each of these subtypes, unexpected from the previous forms, just as feathers were used at first for warmth and then made flight possible in the birds. These are transitions from one form to another, and the characteristics which mark those transitions, which can be very complex.

Plate tectonics is just such a boundary event, created when enough lighter rock, viz. granite and quartz differentiated out from the more common, more dense basaltic rock. Again just piling up a great deal of isotopes of the lighter and heavier elements would not have given necessarily any idea that such a thing as continental drift was possible. And yet it exists and is real.

Taking the hierarchy of the change from Atoms to molecules shows this very clearly. Bonding of atoms is real and is due to the electron level characteristics. Simply knowing the structure of atoms does NOT give the necessary knowledge that atoms can bond with each other and create vast, almost unlimited numbers of chemical compounds. Nor does it show, without actually testing and trying it out, that carbon atoms can create very long, relatively stable chains of atoms, which is the basis of organic chemistry, biochemistry and the complex polypeptide/protein chains so necessary for life. The rules change at the boundaries, and these rule changes are the boundary events which mark those edges.

For instance, polypeptide chains can be used as biochemical signaling devices. This is not clearly known from the study of molecules alone. It takes a very large, very advanced cell organization to see this. A simple poplypeptide chain can produce very important hormonal and regulating effects, such as insulin and gastrin, for example. They are 100′s of such examples such as pituitary hormones, GIP, VIP, gastrin, endorphins and so forth.

In addition, certain organizations of complex proteins chains of amino acids can catalyze chemical reactions at lower temperatures than would be expected. Humans create nitrogen fertilizer, essentially ammonia and ammonium by the Haber-Bosch process which requires 100′s degrees of heat and 100′s of atmosphere of pressure. Then we look at Rhizobacteria, one of my favorite bacteria, which live in the roots of legumes, the bean and pea family. They can fix atmospheric nitrogen at soil temperature. And why? because they use protein chain chemistry called enzymes. These are the boundary events from complex biochemistry to living systems. Those new, immanent, unexpected surprises which await us when atoms are connected into larger and larger groups. No one could possibly have imagined that enzymes could have created complex chemical transformations by looking at bonding.

Indeed, the problem is this. We cannot build up biochemistry of enzymes from physics. That’s a boundary event. Physics can’t build up a system of understanding of living systems, simply because of those boundary events, such as complex interactions of the amino acid chains which can create hormonal effects and the enzymes which literally create all metabolism. The Quantum mechanic equations do NOT include those boundary events, which marks the next hierarchy from biochemistry to living cells, let alone complex division and reproduction which gave rise to each cell. Quantum mechanics is incomplete. ALL scientific models are incomplete.

This is why mathematics cannot follow. It’s simply too simple to do it. We cannot model nor describe anything past basic biochemistry because the rules have changed at each boundary event of the hierarchies. It’s why complex system are beyond the ken of even the most advanced mathematics. That’s why they cannot deal with plate tectonics, or solve the N-body problem. Nor can mathematics use its symbology to translate much of anything spoken or written into entirely mathematical symbols which are meaningful. It’s too limited. And those are the facts.

So we have the elementary stable particles, which are then assembled into the next hierarchy, the atoms and elements and isotopes, and then the next hierarchy created by chemical bonding. Then comes organic chemistry of the carbon bond, and then the biochemistry built upon that. And then the complex protein/polypeptide chemistries at a next hierarchical level. And finally comes the cell, the multicellular hierarchies we call multicellular organisms, which contain the next hierarchies of the organ systems.

And finally, comes the neurons, the neural nets, the ganglia and finally the brain. And at the top of this, some FIVE levels above the biochemistry/protein boundary the human mind based upon the complicated neuronal networks of some 50K-60K interacting cortical cell columns, yet another hierarchy, from which arising at the brain interface of the interactive CCC’s, comes the mind itself, of which no math can possible understand, nor describe in very much detail.

At the top is the comparison process, which creates signal detection, recognition, pattern recognition, language, visual imagery, sensory integrations, thinking, analysis, long term memory, the emotions and much else.
If mathematics cannot even tell us how and why enzymes work, and how to understand those processes at the biochemical level, allowing us to design new enzymes and so forth, from the immanency, the boundary events of chemical transformations, then how can it possibly, 4 more levels up describe and understand the mind? Let alone plate tectonics, a complete and accurate solution of the complex orbits in the solar system, nor understand the living cell? That is the boundary problem of the hierarchies. From the simple biochemistry which at first is more understandable and stops there dead cold at the protein chains, and the even more complex organelle and unlimited N-body problems posed by the complex cell. These are the limits of mathematics. We need a much more advanced kind of mathematics which can describe and give us measurable numericity to understand those systems, first. Such methods do not exist.

See:

http://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

But time and again, from the immense taxonomies of the millions of species, to the millions of chemical compounds, to musics, to language, and speech, to creativity and beyond, the brain/mind interface can understand, comprehend and build and grow. This progression then leads us inevitably to the comparison process, and the next installment in these articles.

What is the COMP? How does it work outside of normal logic? How does it give rise to logics? How does it avoid the pitfalls of Godel’s proof and normal logic? Is it exempt from the limits of verbal and mathematical logic? Very likely. And that’s why it works where verbal logic and mathematical logic, the very basis of our linear maths, cannot follow. The following article will discuss the major Uber characteristics, the boundary event characteristics of the comparison process and why and how it works and creates the mind.