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/

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.
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.

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.

A Field Trip into the Mind

.
.
A Field Trip into the Mind via the COMParison Process

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

Content:
1. Empirical introspection
2. Commonality establishing validity in introspection; Rule of Commonality (RoC); related to confirmation of scientific findings;
3. Structure/function relationships in brain as a basis for commonality; common cortical cell columns in most all persons
4. Comparison Process (COMP) as the basis of the mind’s higher level cortical functions.
5. Recognition as intrinsically COMP; mental tasks basically similar from person to person, and this establishes the commonality of reading, indexing, etc.
6. The immense complexity of the CCC’s and the impossibility of understanding all of the details/complexity of 10K’s of neurons and interactions of 1000′s of synapses of a neuron with other 10K’s of neurons.

7. Our field trip begins in ancient Sumeria with the Epic of Gilgamesh and his emotions; philias and emotions; Flood stories and possible sources of the myth.
8. To Joseph of the many colors coat and ancient Egypt’s prediction from observation
9. Limits of science which cannot verify our history very well; The past cannot be studied in all cases; no valid scientific evidence that Julius Caesar, ever lived ever lived; The grieving of Achilles like the grieving of Gilgamesh.
10. Cassandra of Troy and prophecy/prediction; a new understanding of forecasting and credibility; the meaning of some myths exposed as deeper than understood before;
11. The antiquity of human emotions. and abilities; The Calculus of Archimedes and of Newton/Leibniz 2000 years apart as a measure of commonality in creativity; Non-euclidean geometries, created FOUR times over.
12. Basis of the COMP by comparing moral laws, scientific laws, legal laws and the conscience in our frontal lobes.
13. Emotions, speech, creativity, moral laws, all comparison processes seen over 5500 years.
14. Motor vehicle laws as a complexity created upon the Pauli Exclusion principle; from the simple comes the complex.
15. Dreams and dream interpretations possibly valid in some cases by empirical introspection; dreams exist by the rule of commonality.
16. Medical substantiation and proofs of introspection being real and valid.
17. A field trip into dreams and the validity of the reports.
18. Substantiation of Freud’s repressed/lost memories by two dreams.
19. The magical, unreal qualities of dreams versus their basis in memories as well as their basis in creating stories and imaginations. flying in dreams; willful telekinesis in dreams
20 Mental processing speeds and computers; do computers make people think faster?
21. Consciousness’ complexity based upon the interactions, organizations and outputs of 100,000′s of cortical cell columns and processes.
22. Stream of Consciousness, Ulysses, and the demons of madness/mania; dreams and madness; delusions and the CCC’s output, the COMP, goes wrong; speaking in tongues as similar.
23. Where do good ideas come from in problem solving; the masses of voices of the CCC’s.
24. Recognition and when it goes wrong; illusions and delusions related; critical thinking necessary to deal with the COMP gone wrong; Pareidolia as a COMP experience and evidence of the COMP.
25. The recognition continuum from madnesses and delusions to accurate and valid recognitions; highly probable brain/mind recognitions imitated by Bayesian statistics in computer models of recognition
26. Dopamine and formation/facilitation of long term memory (LTM).

As a field biologist for over 50 years and experience and training in the neurosciences for 45 years, that field was remarkably similar to field biology in terms of discoveries, approaches, learning and methods, It’s a comfortable way to travel about. So here we go.

1. Essentially, in the article, “Empirical Introspection”, it was shown how to get inside our heads using the Comparison Process (COMP). Basically, human science and medical practice use the same method of observation, testing and then discovery of new findings, or in the case of medicine, diagnosis followed by treatment if possible or necessary.

Observations are reported in journals in the sciences and an equally legitimate report is filed for each patient, all of it documented as to findings, leading to conclusions called diagnoses, with a treatment plan, and so forth. The findings can all be verified by others following much the same methods, if they are true, and more can also be learned about the conditions/events being studied. It’s a valid method, scientifically. Or is most medical practice scientifically invalid?

2. The issue is commonality. That which exists in our universe is that which we all can detect in common. In other words, if that tree in my back yard is real, I can prove it by documentation, images and so forth. It exists despite/independently of my documentations, of course, but that makes it more real for those who cannot see it directly. In the same way events in the universe can be studied by the scientific method to show that they exist and are real by the carefully done, scientific studies, published in good literature, and then confirmed at least twice by other, credible, independent groups to establish if what was found is indeed real. These confirmations establish commonality. If the events in existence are real, then those can create technologies in most cases to take advantage of those real, recurring events in space/time. And they will work any where/any time in our universe, where the conditions are the same, for the last 15-20 B Yrs. and LY’s and in all spaces and times in between. & likely for billions of years into the future.

3. This similar kind of commonality can be developed for the human brain/mind. We know that the brain has structure/function relationships, which are stable and reliably there in almost all persons. If a person has a stroke in his speech centers, there will be damage to the speech output/function. The same is true for specific motor functions, & higher level functions throughout the brain. This has been established beyond all doubt.

In the same way the higher functions of language, thinking, music, facial recognition, visual information processing, movement, etc., have been localized to various regions in the brain. There is some variation in it, but it’s all pretty much the same from person to person. The same cortical cell columns which make up the outer layers of the brain, the cortex, when see on the microscopic sections show the same 6 layers, And over the cortex the EEG is the same, alpha, beta, theta, wherever tested. When the person sleeps the cortex is largely shut down, and we know that intact brain stem gives wakefulness to the cortex. The complex processes and abilities of the human brain/mind are found in the cortex. There are other connections, but when the cortex is damaged, the major functions may be lost forever, unless some healing is possible, but esp. in older persons, there is not much ability to recover completely from serious damage. This is fact.

The Cortex of the brain, the cortical cell columns (CCC) with their 6 layers invariant (except motor cortex is modestly different, lacking layer 4 and has Betz cells) are micrographically, virtually all the same from the the visual cortex, to the sensory, speech, hearing and frontal cortex, too. They do differ in function, tho, but given that each CCC, of the 100K’s of CCC’s, has 10K’s of neurons, with multiple and differing functions, yet still are almost all alike, save for, we assume, differences in synaptic connections, upwards of 1000′s per neuron.

Here we have a commonality of structure and therefore function. The Comparison Process is likely the dominant, high level function of each CCC. It’s the basis of the mind. It can function in many different ways from creating recognition, its basic function, to creativity, a form of recognition and much else, including language, vision, musical ability, motor performance, sensation, and is the modulator/mediator for the emotions via a dopamine system built into the CCC.

See the “Emotional Continuum”.

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

And here is the situation, when the COMP goes wrong we find delusions commonly, or mistakes in speech, or even mania and psychosis, too. But it can mostly be traced back to the cortical mediation by the COMP. If we want to investigate the mind/brain interface, we look to the COMP to give us guidance and insight as to what to look for, because the COMP is the basis of recognition via a tie in to the Long Term Memory (LTM), or with working memory in many cases. If we see someone we know, it triggers a feed of information to the visual cortex, creating a brain image, which gets observed by the Right inferior temporal lobe in the FFA, and we re-cognize that person. That is we “KNOW again”, based upon the COMP, comparing the image from the eyes with the LTM image. That’s what creates recognition of images. The exact physiology is way more complicated than we can imagine, but recognition is an established fact in the mind/brain interface, and we commonly accept that as a working model.

5. Recognition also works for language, and many other tasks, such as hearing, identifying voices and music by comparing with the LTM in the hearing centers. Speaking and reading by matching/comparing word sounds or written words, and meaning is given. If we want to look up a word in the dictionary, we use the COMP until we find the word, if it’s there, and the dictionary was created, order from disorder by alphabetizing the words by the comparison process. This we all have in common with others. We read and organize dictionaries, lists, indexes, phone books, maps, etc., by the same process, the comparison process. It’s universally used as it’s the basis of recognition, by the simple method given above. That is a part of empirical introspection.

What about descriptions and measurements? This has been treated before:

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

But suffice it to say the descriptions verbal are qualitative kinds of measurements. And descriptions using numbers are quantitative. There exist far fewer examples which can be measurements with respect to descriptions, which are far, far more adaptable, but of course, not necessarily mathematical.

6. As far as understanding HOW the COMP arises from those complicated CCC’s, that would involve solving the N-body problem for 10K’s of neurons with 1000′s each of synaptic connections to other neurons, too. That cannot be done, because the possible combinations which need to be understood in these complex systems is in the range of 10 exp millions or more. No computer, no matter how fast currently existing, or conceivable can sort thru all of that complexity of virtually unlimited size. But the commonality of functions of speech, language, hearing and so forth can all be located in the cortex as the primary information processing area for the higher functions. We therefore look at the CCC production being unable to comprehend the complexity of the neural networks in most of their details.

7. Let us now, having stated that, move backwards in time to the Mesopotamian area around the Sumerian civilization about 5500 years ago. From there we get the epic of Gilgamesh, which is the oldest known work from that area. In it we learn of Gilgamesh, a mighty man, and his friend, wild, untamed, yet still human, Enkidu. They were close friends. And here we find philias first, that of brotherly love, the same Philias from which Philadelphia was created, the City of Brotherly Love. This was not Eros, or other forms of love, but philias. And then Enkidu died. Gilgamesh was torn up by his grieving and loss. He grew angry and destructive and the people appealed to the gods for help.

But the point is this. Here was friendship which we know today, and there was anger, and loss and grieving over 5000 years ago. The tale is credible from our standpoint. We have seen and felt the same emotions ourselves and in others. Gilgamesh and Enkidu, regardless of their technological backwardness were noticeably, emotionally human. This establishes an historical continuum of the existence of recognizably modern human emotions to about the middle 4th C. B.C. It establishes the commonality of those emotions within most humans, whether then or up until today.

Gilgamesh even went so far as to meet Utnapishtim, who was the Sumerian equivalent of Noah. The Flood story is an ancient one and by means of the Atrahasis and Siusudras, as well as the later Greek Deucalion story of the Flood, we know something happened then, about the middle 4th C. B.C. Whether it was from an extended monsoon, or an asteroidal oceanic impact which put 10K’s of cubic miles of water into the atmosphere, which rained down over the Middle East and possibly elsewhere, we do not know. But there the first rainbow was also reported, which extra-ordinary depths of the rainbow have explored before in “Depths within Depths…”.

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

The brain is also like that. Depths within depths, the mind at the top, the CCC’s next and then the entire complex anatomy and cellular metabolism of the cells which supports it. The mind on top, the CCC’s doing their mysterious neurophysiological magic, which we are hard pressed to understand, although we can see the COMP working there during waking and occ. during sleep in dreams. Recalling and remembering dreams and even creating dreams through lucid dreaming, too.

So in the absence of any kind of detailed neurophysiological understanding which defies our limited sciences and math, we are left with the COMP to show us what is going on in the mind. And it works. Posit the COMP and we can understand better most languages, creativity, recognition and the metaphor/analogy/anecdote word cluster which arises, is produced from the comparison process, too. It provides a look into the mind. And we use the commonalities of experience to understand others’ minds, too.

8. From Gilgamesh we travel to the Palestine area about the year 2000 B.C., before it was known by that name and find the story of Joseph, son of Jacob, AKA Israel, with many brothers. His father favored him and it drew the envy and anger of his brothers. We can understand those emotions, too. Those are common enough today. So they took his coat of many colors and sold him into slavery in Egypt, where his father would not find him, thinking him dead. There Joseph had an experience of lust with Potiphar’s wife and was thrown into jail. But he was let out by his good character. And Pharaoh, the Per Ah, Great House, had a dream of the 7 fat cattle and the 7 lean Cattle.

Joseph knew the Nile flooded every year, but occasionally. there were serious droughts when as we now know, the monsoon failed in Ethiopia, which supplies the Blue Nile with most of its water, and thus Egyptian Nile, giving life and flooding and volcanic, rich silt to the land of Egypt during the yearly inundation there. He made this connection to the Per Ah’s dream. The story goes on. But we know those emotions, they all had. We each have seen them.

9. Science can give us very little information about history. This is a failing and limit to science. How can we study that which is no longer there? How can one experiment on and observe the past? Archeology is about as close as the sciences get to history, but what do we have but commonality and preponderance of evidence to know if Julius Caesar ever lived? Or Jeshua Ben Joseph or Mohammed or the Buddha? Nothing. The sciences cannot answer. So we rely upon commonality again. We recognize those emotions in Gilgamesh and Joseph. We recognize them in the Iliad of Homer, the Trojan War epic. We recognize those feelings and actions and their own recognitions of each other, throughout.history. And we see the grieving of Achilles over his lost friend, Patroklos, very similar to we saw in the Epic of Gilgamesh, over 2000 years before.

10. In Troy lived Cassandra and her brother, Alexandros, pious to the gods, young persons, the children of Priam of Troy, or Wilios, as the Mukenens (Myceneans) called it. They were given the gift of prophecy by the gods. But some gods, realizing it was too powerful a gift, gave them a compensating curse. All would know they could predict the future, but few would believe them. Here again is the power of myth, tho it’s real and true, unlike some other wild speculations. We see this again and again. “A Prophet is without honor even in his own land.” Prophets are not always/often believed, many have had that experience a few times. Who believed Churchill, that great statesman and a very rare person, a seer, who knew what Hitler was. and who knew before the end of WW2 what Stalin was up to in taking over eastern Europe? Though he was not believed until after those events had occurred and then many people didn’t care to acknowledge his rare talent, as related in C. P. Snow’s “The Variety of Men”.

That is the deeper meaning. The myth of Cassandra is a piquant and good reminder that people do not want to hear prophecies and even after being told the truth, and it occurs, they will not acknowledge it. It’s no myth. It’s a deep psychological insight as true today as it was 3300 years ago. Some truths are universal, esp. if the human emotions/mind have not changed very much in the long years of intervening time. Many of the Ancient Greek myths such as Sisyphus, or the Bed of Procrustes have deeper meanings. This shows the power of the COMP to understand, to creatively find truths and meaning. How many here reading this have EVER considered the deeper meaning of the myth about Cassandra and prophecy? Yet, we can see it’s true. We can understand it. and how? We have the same COMP working in our brains.

11. We see much the same feelings and emotions in the ancient Greek plays of the 5th/4th C. BC. up to present times. From the Oresteian trilogy of Aeschylus through the “Lysistrata” of Aristophanes, we see them in full display 2400 years ago. And again, from the histories and stories preserved right from the Roman times, to Chaucer and up into current events.

Therefore, by the evidence of commonality, the Rule of Commonality (RoC), we know that human emotions have been very much like ours for the last 5500 years. We see recognition in them as well, as they all knew each other, too. They had CCC and the COMP then, very much similar to us at Present.

What is responsible for this stability in the emotions? Human brain structure and genetics. By the COMP we see across all cultures, all times for the last 5,500 years, the same emotions and the same recognition processes in the human brain. On the basis of the RoC, then we know those are likely real and true. Love exists, grieving exists, crying and the emotions exist in each of us and everywhere for humans for at least the last 5500 years. The sciences are silent upon these facts. yet our long, detailed histories, literature and the RoC established them as true. The sciences are silent on morality and many other spiritual matters. Does morality exist, tho the sciences cannot study it and tell us if “You will not kill” is good or bad? Shall we kill and steal and create damage because the sciences cannot study these and give an empirically true and well confirmed answer? No.

Did Archimedes create the Calculus in about 300 BC? Yes. Did Newton and Leibniz create their very similar versions of the calculus 2000 years later? Yes. Commonality, once again. The same COMP function from the same genetics/brain structures of the cortical cell columns. Virtually the same insights leading to the 3, independent, very similar creations of the calculus.

The Rule of Commonality establishes the Comparison Process in our cortex, too. We do the same COMP as our neighbors do, and as our ancestors did, also. We can understand Hittite and ancient Sumerian even this day, tho some of it is over 5000 years old, using the COMP to translate dead languages, even as were the Linear B tablets from old Mukena of the Trojan War, and Hittite language from the time of the Trojan War, as well. In those, we see the same emotions, the same recognitions, the same COMP working in the past and up to present.

We organize and read phone books and dictionaries and all those similar forms by the same process, the COMP. We all read English by the same means, too. Recognition of words, tied to meanings in our LTM. By the RoC which establishes the validity of the sciences, and the validity of most modern medical practice, as well. It’s not certain in all cases, but does not have to be. Or are we to deny the existence of migraine headaches and pleasure and pain, too?

Or will we deny the same process in the creation of the THREE(perhaps 4) independently created non-Euclidean geometries of Gauss, Riemann, and Lobachevski, as well as the same process of creativity documented in the evolutionary model by Wallace and Darwin, each some 25 years apart? And of the 12th C. monk who also created the basis of a non-Euclidean geometry 500 years before Gauss?

12. Let’s look into how the COMP was discovered/created. I’ve studied these matters for at least 45 years. It’s reasonable to conclude that my insights have a good deal of knowledge, experience and judgement behind them. The insight came with the thought that the structure of our moral laws based upon religion, was very similar to the structure of our physical laws. This was sort of interesting. How is it possible that our Judeo-Christian moral laws, could have created the similar physical laws? Something in common must be acting. For what do we find in moral laws? We have prescriptions for specific actions we can and cannot do. And how do we know what those laws are, sitting there thinking? Because we COMPARE Each of ours and others’ behaviors to the moral laws, and see if we break them, or obey them. We compare in our minds the physical laws to events in existence, which we have established by careful testing and observation, both COMP tasks, and those events do correspond.

At first came the thought that it was the J-C moral laws’ structure which created the same, stable form of the laws which describe the universe’s working. This was why science first arose in the West, because Physical Laws correspond to the structure of moral laws. We compare in each to see if events work that way. There is a commonality among them. If that were the case that only cultures created the two systems of laws, Moral and Scientific, then no one else could figure them out unless Jewish or Christian. Clearly, something else was going on, because persons of all persuasions anywhere on the planet can be converted to Christianity and observe those laws, and persons of all races and cultures and languages can also do very good science and understand it from learning in schools, as well.

13. And this common element is the Comparison Process in our brain cortices. Common to all humans, everywhere, for 1000′s of years, because the emotional systems within which those moral laws can only work, has been unchanged for 1000′s of years, too. Stability & commonality. Very similar moral and religious laws, the same mind/brain processes working for 1000′s of years, across many, many widely differing cultures, languages and places, means a common process is working in the human brain. And that marked the discovery, and realization of the COMP. The Comparison Process is the lowest common denominator of most all higher level thought processes so far tested. Analogies, metaphors, even logic and mathematics all arise from it secondarily. The COMP is very likely the primary thinking process..

Again, a creative insight by the comparison process. Completely consistent with the COMP model. We can use the COMP to look into the minds of our creative people and see what’s going on in there, the same as they read words, read dictionaries, and maps, and street addresses, too. If it does the one, it can do most all, potentially. It’s the same process, allowing for the many variations, which is easily acceptable.

Our consciences are little more than an internalized moral code in our LTM, accessible by our brains. With that we test and check our behaviors against our own actions and those of others. This is the COMP because testing and checking are the COMP, also. In the Legal laws, the cops police us and govern us by them. They and WE know when a car runs a red light, or when someone hits another person, or otherwise injures them. Most all of us have the comparison processes to recognize these actions as illegal.The conscience in our frontal lobes corresponds very well to moral laws, legal laws as well as physical laws of the universe in the way they are created and set up to be read and applied by the comparison process.

14. As an aside, the vast majority of our motor vehicle laws are based upon the simple Exclusion Principle created/discovered by Pauli. It’s easy to see. No two fermions, normal matter, can occupy the same space at the same time. If we collide there is bound to be damage of some kind, If we run over other persons or into buildings, other cars or objects, there will be damage. The most of vehicular laws are set up to deal with this possibility and try to avoid/minimize this problem by car lanes, traffic regulating lights and signs and other means, to prevent accidents and provide remedies in case such damage/injuries should occur.

By comparing the Pauli Exclusion Principle to our traffic laws, we can recognize/see/understand that this is true. We can replace most of the legal complexities and regs/rules by “Don’t run into any person/thing and cause damage.” That’s all that’s needed. The rest is just enforcement and remedies for damages. If someone breaks that rule, they get nailed by the laws as harshly as the damage demands. Simple. Basic. We don’t need any other laws, besides that one. The power of the COMP. Again, the Rule of Commonality can be invoked, honestly and truly by the Comparison Process. Working within all of us.

We can see inside our heads with the COMP. We can see ourselves reasoning and thinking to avoid breaking moral laws/customs, and seeing those who do so, as well. We can see legal laws being broken and know not to break them, ourselves. We can see what is going on in the brain of police officer who’s pulled over an errant driver. He can see into the driver’s mind and what he’s thinking by the same rule. This is empirical introspection made possible by the COMP. And it’s valid.

Thinking and other higher brain processes are very likely the COMP. This is what explains thought, those processes we go through when using the COMP for math, testing, comparing, recognition, creativity, reading, speaking, writing and so forth. Most all the higher processes are very likely the COMP. Our consciousnesses and our consciences are most all comparison processes.

Some have talked about where the self recognition, the self of each person comes from. This is very easy using the COMP. We see ourselves in mirrors, and we know that by comparing ourselves with others, what we are. Simple observation, making sense by comparing our faces, our arms and legs and everything in between, we know we are human and members of our culture, speaking each language of those, and behaving according those moral laws/rules.We know that each of us has feelings, and pain and pleasure as they have the same internal sensations as do we, within the normal variations.

How can legal laws proliferate at a rate of 50k-100K pages of new rules and regs per years? Is this not the endlessness of the COMP, its unlimited nature, tho gone badly wrong?

15. What of that real problem, dreams? What are dreams?
The problem of investigating dreams is the problem of introspection. How do we know what dreams mean has been the bugaboo of the entire field since Freud’s “The Interpretation of Dreams”. Most of it simply is not believed because of lack of substantiation for his approach. A great many New Agers also talk/write about dream interpretation with an equivalent lack of credible substantiation. The same is true of popular herbal books, which smack of folk medicine, poor thinking and lack of substantiation.

But there is a way and in the clinical neuroscience it’s been used for years. How do we know that dreams exist? Because of the Rule of Commonality (RoC). We know that pain exists in people for the same reason, everyone knows about it and has realistic appreciation for those injuries and related problems such as migraine headaches with also do exist. The same is true of pleasure and other findings, introspective.

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

Empirical Introspection

16. But in specific cases? That’s a tough one. When a patient comes in with numbness, either persistent or intermittent in the hand, we can tell if it’s real or not by several techniques. First, does it correspond (compare) to real sensory nerve distributions or not? If hand/glove kind it’s not always clear. With a careful exam we can detect numbness and tingling with specific methods and find on electromyograms (EMG) whether or not the reports of numbness have a concomitant injury shown by increased latencies and slowed nerve conduction speeds. The above can provide realistic, confirmable by others, and SPECIFIC determinations that the individual complaints are real. That is, the introspective reports are the case.
But how can we do this in dreams? We know they exist, but reports of dream content are colored by length of time elapsed between the dream and report, emotional factors such as social concerns about appropriateness, etc. But occasionally there are real cases where we CAN show this.

I’ve been a field biologist for over 50 years. My observational skills are developed. I have two cases. The first where a recurrent dream of walking along a weathered wooden pier with planks missing, and the green water below with waves sloshing against the piles and at times almost close enough to get my feet wet. In each case over 40 years, I was simply terrified I’d fall into the water and get drowned. In each case of these repeated nightmares, I was usually stressed by situational problems at work, etc.
But the key was, we were showing old family movies of the time we visited in St. Petersburg, FL., and on one of them it showed a movie of that same pier, same color water (all my dreams are in color). At once I recognized that THAT was the source of the dream. I’d walked on the pier with my father, and had been terrified. But I’d forgotten the event.
This was clearly Freudian repressed memory, because for some 45 years it wasn’t clear WHERE the dream had come from. Within a few weeks, that dream tried to recur, I just said while dreaming, this is that old memory and I won’t have this any more. And did not, and haven’t since.

Once the source of the terror was found, and realized what it was, in tandem with Freudian neurosis abatement observations (which argues that Freud’s rules are real and existing by the RoC), the dream stopped. It has never recurred, either. I had a similar dream with a swaying elevator, and once figured out, some 10 years later, when riding on the SAME elevator, the recognition came to me that THAT was where it had come from. It tried to recur, and I abolished it the same way.

19. That dreams can appear to be remnants of older memories many times, which we seem to have forgotten, not just repressed, seems to be the case. The fantastic elements of dreams, events appearing, disappearing and so forth, are simply NOT real and unexplainable at present

However, for this one. I can fly sometimes while dreaming. I lift up off the ground and take off. Sadly, no one who’s ever seen me having one of these dreams has reported any levitation whatsoever of my body!! But the one thing I do recall is that the flying was always very slow. I’d get caught up in wires, etc. and thinking about it, it takes a LOT of processing power to fly, creating all of that changing, cartooning visual imagery, esp. very high, because then the complexity of the surrounding scenery would take a LOT more processing power to recreate that. I am NOT a hang glider person, tho I have no fear of flying at all.

In this case of flying dreams, they are completely synthetic and cannot possibly compare to any real memories at all. In the case of lucid dreaming reports, the persons can also get control of their dreams and create fictional activities, too. Therefore it’s hard to believe the dictum that ALL dreams are based almost completely upon memories, only. Those memories might provide a groundwork, but the mind can build on that, actually. It can create dreams very much like how stories are created, using past experiences. We know this because the scene changes in dreams are NOT real because things simply appear and disappear in violation of physical laws. That is magical thinking, which isn’t real any more than one can fly or cause objects several meters from one, to move into one’s hand. That fiction my dreams have done a lot of. But telekinesis has never been shown to be real without instrumental assistance.

20. However, I was using computers about 1995, and at the time moved up from a low baud of a few 100 to a 2400 baud rate of screen scrolling. It exceeded the ability of my brain to read each line by a factor of several times. But bless my brain it DID try to keep up, tho never really succeeded. Within weeks of that time, tho, my flying dreams ALSO sped up, markedly, and I wasn’t getting slowed down or tangled up in wires again Since then, continuing to use faster and faster computers, I can fly a LOT faster and higher, too, even to this day.

Probably, visual processing speed in my brain sped up to its maximum by using the new high speed modem. And my dreams got faster. One suspects that using computers has sped up the the brain processing of we humans, where such is possible, too. As speed of intellectual processing is related to 85% of IQ, because the IQ tests are timed, therefore this creates a reasonable conclusion from my dreaming of flying, that computers may in fact speed up our brains and make us proportionately smarter, in that respect.

These are the ONLY realistic interpretations of dreams I’ve ever been able to make. Should OTHERS have similar findings, then we can begin by the RoC, to learn more about dreams. Until then it’s a lot of speculation as Father Freud first formally showed us by his very flawed, “Interpretation of Dreams”. We must have a LOT more testable, introspective data to compare with before we can more reliably decode and understand our specific dreams.

21. Let us consider yet another aspect of consciousness using the Comparison Process and the Rule of Commonality. We know we have 100K’s of cortical cell columns pretty working in tandem while we are awake, i.e. parallel processing. Most of these are doing tasks much of the time when we are thinking or going about our daily tasks and activities. But most of the time we ignore much of that blooming buzzing confusion around us. We ignore leaves on plants, rocks and stones on the ground, the complexity of grass leaves on lawns, etc.

All of that implies very clearly that we are ignoring most of the CCC(cortical cell columns) which are working, much of the time. Attention focused means that we are ignoring a lot of sensory input which is constantly going on and being processed. Then what gets our attention? Clearly, we have priorities. Loud noises, bright flashes of lights, hearing our names, a sudden source of pain, and so forth. This refocuses attention to such things. We can also focus on memories and how to type and read to compose lines like this, by ignoring a lot of other sensory inputs, constantly working while we do composition.

So we have a LOT of COMP going on all the time, onto which we can focus our attentions. Each of these are like voices/individuals seeking attention while we are awake. This is the stream of consciousness is it not? When we are not attending it, it becomes the subconscious, very much like that of Freud. We can shift to any of these processed data streams, the pain in a foot, the position of the left leg, the color in the background of the typing screen, and many other things. The totality of this is the consciousness, is it not? It’s awareness of the many sensory inputs and the many tasks our 100K’s of CCC’s are up to when we are awake.

22. The Stream of Consciousness writing of James Joyce’ “Ulysses” has been mentioned before as a signal way in which consciousness can work. But let us look further. While dreaming we can hear other voices. This means that a voice recording/creation capability is there for us to play any time, but we rarely access it except when sleeping during REM periods. How is this any different from the Voices, or visions which many have reported during waking times, esp. if they are in manic/psychotic states? We have reports of people seeing visual hallucinations, also, tho rarer because that requires a LOT more processing power. How are the voices the madmen hear any different from the controlled words we hear others saying while asleep?

Clearly, the former are out of control and show us what’s going on in comparison. The brain isn’t working right, but the pathology shows us how the brain can work when things go wrong (the comparison process, again). There is a misapprehension and an accessing of memories and the ability to CREATE a conversation using normal imagination and then to imbue it in the manic/psychotic mind with a sense of reality, which it does not have. This is the fictional/inventive aspect of the consciousness at work is it not? And it does not differ that much from the looseness of associations seen, also manifested in Ulysses either? The very basis of creative writing.

How about the demons and voices which folk belief attribute to person who are crazy? The possessions by demons comes to mind. They say things out of their heads, and the COMP in people have falsely interpreted those as being of demon possession, when in fact they are simply expression of unsuppressed and controlled processes in the stream of consciousness which have gone very wrong. The person hearing those voices and what he says have been equally misinterpreted by his hearers as being of demonic origin, the demons of possession and by himself as being something more than the inventions of his own brain, mistaken by himself as being real. The frontal lobes are not doing their testing/checking work very well, and the system becomes delusional, on the part of the hearers as well as he who is talking.

22. Speaking in tongues is yet another manifestation of the COMP gone wrong in the brain, because persons actually think that gibberish means something, when it doesn’t. Anyone can speak this way. We simply set loose the ability to talk and say the biggest bunch of uncontrolled series of sounds, vowels, syllables, etc., we can. But to falsely attribute this to being of some significance is as silly as believing the loose associations of the manic/psychotic are meaningful either. Our Frontal lobe checker for normal, intelligible speech has been disabled voluntarily in glossolalia and by a sick neurophysiology in the mania. And that’s likely what is going on. Again, a problem with the comparison Process, not unlike that being seen in the psychotic, tho certainly not as severe.

23. Where DO all those good ideas we think of come from? And the answer is we parallel process to solve problems and find ideas. The ones which make sense to us we focus upon and ignore the rest. This not only explains how ideas “pop up” seemingly from no where, but gives a rational, evidentiary source for them from the 100,000′s of CCC which are doing the work, either together in connected clusters or in other ways.
These are simply more examples of what is going on inside our brains using the COMP and cortical cell columns which do the work.

Let’s talk about recognition. We know this exists very clearly because we see it massive in others, as well as animals and even some plants have a form of it. Recognition is the major production of the comparison process as stated before and shown by innumerable examples. It means basically that we detect a sensory input (or inputs) or idea/word/image, compare it to LTM and it makes a fit, matches, and so forth. It compares well to that internalized memory in our LTM.

24. Recognition continua can be seen of many types. We’ve all had that pseudo recognition when we’ve heard or seen something and when we check it realize our brain, that is COMP, was playing tricks on us. It didn’t stand up to repeated checking/testing. A sound which sounded like something else, a dark spot in the corner of our vision which disappeared when we tried to see it more clearly. These are the misfirings of the COMP, which create in more substantial cases, delusions, rationalizations, myths, false beliefs, superstitions and so forth. With good training in critical thinking, we can rid ourselves of much of this noise/nonsense parading as useful knowledge. As always, James Lett’s chapter on “Critical Thinking” in Frazier Kendrick’s well edited book, “The 100th Monkey” from Prometheus Books can provide good methods to clear out the “Balogna”, a la Carl Sagan.

24. The complex images of pareidolia, or seeing complex images in clouds, or grass patterns, or Jesus in a tamale of occasional appearance, too. These too are the COMP trying to make sense of things, and failing. Yet we don’t immediately become aware of it. Most of us see the “man in the moon” effect, but if you look, you can also see the native American’s rabbit, too. Rabbit Ears are where the face’s eyes are, to help us see it on a full moon day with minimal cloud cover. That’s the COMP working, though our checkers dismiss it as interesting, but not real, tho similar. Again, the comparison process in action.

25. That’s one end of the recognition continua represented as a part of the dualities of nonsense and errors, versus much more recognizable, real perceptions. I recall being in Raratonga where a great many persons ride motorbikes because fuel is very costly there. Standing on a roadside and saw something coming floating down the road, towards me, with very little noise as the wind was blowing towards it, muffling noise. As the image got closer I began to see a very large woman with a huge, flowing dress which virtually covered the entire motorbike she sat on. And then heard the sound of the small cylinder engine firing off, putt-putting as she came towards me. These are the illusions made by inadequate visual comparisons with audible sounds to make sense of it. Again, something very odd, becoming with time, something very interesting, but entirely real and existing, well within the normal range of recognition. It showed us how with very little data, our COMP is seeking to explain things and make sense of them with descriptions qualitative, which became better, even better as time passed.

And it’s easy to see how such inadequately evaluated images can become myths, that is, the illusions become delusions and very often damaging to our best interests, long term survival and benefit.

25. The other end of the continuum would be those images, senses, touches, audible inputs which are very easily, accurately recognized, such as hit tunes or classical pieces, coins, or books, or cars, etc. Those are highly probable events to some extent, although to describe them completely reduces the chances of the description verbal being completely correct. This is how, roughly, Bayesian statistics used by can imitate human recognition, tho in the brain’s CCC’s there is nothing definably mathematical going on at all. Qualitative matching, comparison descriptions are very different from mathematics, and much more flexible and useful, too, as has been shown in other “Description/Measurement” articles.

26. Let’s look at memorable events in our lives compared to those events we mostly ignore or don’t attend to much. Those events which are of importance to us, marriage, having a child, seeing a scene of great beauty, a tune of similar note, we have in each case a great deal of dopamine release. On the other hand, very unpleasant experience, such as when we broke a bone, or were burned, or badly hurt emotionally, or socially embarrassed are also recalled, due to the same process. This facilitates and reinforces the laying down of a permanent memory causing protein synthesis and synapses creation to make that memory trace long lasting. less memorable events, such as learning from books, we have to reinforce again and again to learn, esp. if we don’t much have an interest in it. Again, tying in the COMP to the dopamine release we see there also. This is easy to understand using reason alone. But the neurophysiological evidence also supports that conclusion. Again, our minds combine with known physiological responses to figure out what’s going on in our brains/minds.

Well, enough of these meanderings. My mental legs are getting tired. Time to get back home, have a bit of a snack and print out those images we took for our long term memory notebooks in our minds/brains. Maybe tonight we’ll dream of the Old Man in the Mountain in Vermont, or the Camelback Mountain, or even Les Grand Tetons!!

And maybe some reading this will find those many more valid interpretations and methods of introspection to open up further our understanding of the mind/brain.

“Scientists identify link between introspection and brain structure” 2010

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1009/10091604

The Praxis

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

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

The word, praxis, is Greek and means how a model/theory is made/shown to work. Essentially, this means the Comparison Process ( COMP) can be detected and studied neurophysiologically by means described below. Anything which can be studied exists. Because the higher level cortical function of recognition is fundamentally based upon the COMP, then the study of recognition is the study of the COMP in one of its most basic, higher level forms. How do we recognize something, be it a word, an image, a face, a voice, a tune, a sensation? We compare it to our Long Term Memory and if it matches well, then we have recognized it. This is modeled to some extent by Byesian statistics used by computer recognition systems already available.

Now what happens in our cortex during recognition? It’s complicated, and no one really understands, nor can understand all of the details of how all those 10,000′s of cortical cell column neurons interact, esp. with their 100′s-1000′s of synapses with other neurons. Nor how they interact with the 100,000′s of other cortical cell columns. That is a problem far, far too complicated and detailed for any human mind to figure out in a finite time. So we can approach the problem another way, by cutting through the complexity and simplifying the understanding by using a high level tool, the comparison process.

Recognition at its deepest level is essentially signal detection. From out of ambient noise the brain detects a meaningful signal, and then compares it to LTM (Long Term Memory) for recognition. If it maps reasonably well, then we positively recognize it. The relationship of this to signal detection in psychology is at once obvious. From that comes recognition, or knowing. We know what the signal means. We recognize it by comparing it to our LTM of similar/same events. It matches, another COMP word.

For instance if we hear a sequence of notes which sounds very much like the opening of a popular tune by the Eagles, say “Desperado”, we at once recognize the intervals as that and can name it, and often hum/sing along with it. That is recognition of the auditory/musical kind. If we hear our name yelled out, we often turn towards the source of it, and nod or signal back. That means we recognized our name. So by the evidence, recognition is one of the major actions mediated by COMP. Any event in existence, or idea/word/image which can be studied and recognized neurophysiologically, relating to higher cortical functioning, is part of the comparison process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569488/

The above URL is essentially consistent with the underlying neurophysiology of the Comparison Process. When we recognize something we get a P300 latency, that is a Cortical Evoked Response(CER). It’s similar to photic stimulation, i.e., a sequence of bright lights flashed during EEG recording, and related auditory evoked responses (AER) which are simple, basic detection responses. The high level P300 is associated with general recognition, which may be sensory stimuli, or even recognition of faces, ideas, words, etc. This is the basis of understanding the foundation of the COMP. As it’s cortical in origin, and so are the higher level cortical processes, therefore it fits.

To “match” that is “compare” the internal memory/model of sensations, to external stimuli is essentially what the Comparison Processors do.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727362/

And this which shows that recognition can be detected and understood, as well, including most specific tasks.

http://brainlab.psych.qc.cuny.edu/pdfs/Johnson%20et%20al.%20Psychophysiology%201985.pdf

Again these responses were very small in amplitude, but could be detected by repeated stimulations and built up from background. Higher level cortical recognitions could be detected and recorded with a much higher significance than chance. These articles above show that recognition can be reliably tested in many cases. Essentially, they electrophysiologically show the recognition process going on, that is, the Comparison Process.

Now, let’s take a model previously written about. Dictionary indexing of words to where they belong in a series of words. Using the same, above method of collecting evoked potentials, can be shown, very likely, that the recognition of where the word fits in alphabetically, within a series of words, can be specifically studied. Also, the recognition of what a word means can also be studied. Also the inserting of such a word in a series of alphabetically listed words can also be seen. In each case, if the experiment is done well enough, the exact point where the reader/indexer finds/inserts the word into its proper place can be determined by cortical evoked response (CER), the P300. This will confirm that recognition as previously discussed by the COMP is being measured by the CER. Each time this is seen and confirmed in subjects, will confirm that the COMP is indeed working. And also that it is, by the Rule of Commonality, similarly used by most all persons.

The same is true for every star on the Hertzsprung Russell diagram, the IUPAC listing of 32 Million known compounds, and the massive Taxonomies of all known species of life. And all the phone books, directories, and so forth.

Most every time a word is seen and recognized, until habituation, a reliable CER P300 can be seen which shows that recognition has happened. Far, far more complicated recognitions can also be studied in this way. Images, complex tunes, word phrases, such as “The Beans were in the Can” and show that these make sense, whereas, the “Can was the Beans” makes no sense. There will no difference between the latter and noise, whereas the former will show the characteristic P300 of highly likely recognition, plus the individual will acknowledge that recognition, too. This is the COMP at work in the cortex.

The P300 can be used extensively in these cases to show that in most cases of recognition of a sensible word/word cluster, there is a P300.

Now, linguistically, we conjugate verbs by the “I love, You love, He loves, We love, you love and they love series, Amo, amas, amat, etc. What the COMP model states is that the two words will be recognized with a P300, while the individual words will not. No word is an island. No word stand alone. The recognition by the P300 will show, according to the COMP model what makes sense to the brain’s speech centers and what does not. That is what is language and communication and what is not. This will show that grammar as we know it is NOT as important an aspect of communication as has been thought, but the COMP recognition by P300 IS what is meaningful. The REAL, truly underlying basis to most all language is the Comparison process. It’s how the words compare to each other, which can be detected by the P300, which is what makes language work, what makes sense. It’s the sensory and word context which supplies the meaning, not the formal grammar. It is MEANING which is important not the grammar names of the words. The basic linguistic structures will most all be related by the comparison processes in terms of word/phrase recognitions, not single words, which is basic, school grammar. The P300 will show what is meaningful to the brain is not necessarily our formal grammar, either. It will give us a far deeper insight into how our higher cortical processes work, that is, the Comparison Process.

This is the Mind/Brain interface. This is the Praxis.
It will show that Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device is indeed the cortical cell columns in our speech centers, that language is innate because the CER P300′s will most all be the same during language use and recognition, over all languages, not just English. it will also show the finer details of how unlike languages are differently processed in brain, too.

Linguistically, we will take a user who is otherwise cortically normal by MRI, and present to him/her certain signals such as “What is this?” holding up a banana for instance. There will be a P300 when and if she recognizes the banana. There will be a simple motor related P300 when she’s getting ready to sign the word, “banana”. And this will confirm she knows what it was, and had “re-cognized” the banana. Several other words can also be used. Several other subjects can be tested to find out the normal ranges of these P300 patterns, i.e., to establish Rule of Commonality comparisons and standards.

Now, and the astute know where this is going, (their P300′s are registering recognition, again empirical introspection), we take Koko and do the same to her. We will see very similar patterns in her if she detects the sentence signed by, “What is this?” and her cortical P300 will register it. Then when she signs back “Banana” we will see a similar P300 in her motor cortex as we have seen in human subjects. If it’s not understood, then it will be delayed, background noise P300. If she understands it and signs Banana, a similar P300 effect will be seen comparing well to human detection criteria. Those P300′s, the human and the gorilla, or the chimp, will compare favorably and reliably. and this will not only show that humans and higher primates can communicate, but are also using very similar responses to each other, because our neurophysiologies are very similar, too. The neurophysiology of recognition, of the comparison process.

It will establish that recognition among animals esp., the higher primates, is real and existing and will in other species, show that they are recognizing, too, by an analogous process, if birds, dogs, cats, or other creatures are used. This is the comparative neurophysiology of recognition, that is, the Comparison Process. It will establish that Koko and other apes are indeed capable of recognition of Ameslan, and are using it just like we are, given some modest allowances due to species differences, and the fact they have fewer comparison Processors than do we.

Recognition is the key characteristic of the Comparison Process. And it will guide in the following ways, our understanding of how our brains’ cortical functions work.

Currently, functional MRI (fMRI) is being combined (Comparison process, of course) with Magnetic Encephalogram (MEG) to study structure/function relationships in the brain. We can detect brain function by increased flow by MRI and then correlate (compare) it with MEG signals, too. These are positive signs and methods, showing real, existing comparison processes going on inside of the brain. This is a positive sign that our diagnostic methods are actively using the comparison process in combining fMRI/MEG testing to get more reliable data, as the comparison process shows, will, necessarily, happen. Just like a genetic defect can often provide the comparison necessary to better understand normal function by this same instance of having something to compare to normal.

But there is something lacking and it’s this. What happens if those localized Comparison Processes are turned off, momentarily in the brain? Specific functions will be interrupted or be unable to be initiated. That will provide further solid evidence that a specific higher level function in brain is being shut down at a certain specific site, as previously revealed to be active there. Yet another structure/function relationship, which is basic brain anatomy.

The means to do this non-invasively is here. It’s called magnetic stimulation. Grossly if we stimulate the brain with a high Tesla field, it will make the neurons momentarily depolarize. Then we can selectively depolarize, by repeated stimulation to a spot in the cortex/brain where a cortical activity is being done, such as saying the word, “longitude”. We can find out where this process is going on by interrupting it, temporarily, by brain magnetic stim, can we not? And that will tell us what is going on there by the fact that it stops, having previously located that function in that area by fMRI and MEG. This will complete, non-invasively, the chain of structure/function relationships which can be found in living brain, will it not?

Now how do we do this? Very easily. We have seen how Vinn diagrams overlap. and once again, in the more astute, there is a strong P300 very quickly being created right now. Each of the 3 overlapping in 3 dimensions, magnetic field strength stimulations is sub-threshold depolarization of the brain. Where they overlap, however, they would be made safely supra-threshold. And the desired point to target in the brain can be accurately found within a few millimeters by already well worked out Neurosurgical methods of Stereotactic mapping.

Essentially, the gyri of the cortex of human brain could be sequentially and repeatedly studied non-invasively to find out what was going on at most points in the brain. The fMRI/MEG studies to locate where brain activity was going on, too. And the MagStim point method for confirming the existence at the specific sties in the brain where activity was going on by temporarily stopping it. The 3 comparisons would establish a high degree of reliability and confirm a working structure/function model of the brain to a degree of precision and refinement never seen before. The mind fairly boggles at this potential to utterly revise and gain much deeper understanding of how things work in our brains/minds.

As a further benefit, it’s know that pain stimuli are processed in the brain through a “pain matrix” model of about 10 known sites which mediate/modulate pain. Using the MagStim point system, what each site does can to some extent be figured out. And if 1 or 2 certain areas, when stimulated, block pain completely, the implications would be considerable for pain control, esp. using placement of superficial scalp magnetic stimulation. on affected areas of the sensory cortex or subcortical targets.

How this relates to creativity and its study is clear. By the COMP model, creativity is very much a form of recognition. That “Aha!’ moment. Again, a bit of dopamine release, too. But using the simple pennies method of counting, we could map creativity as better and better means are created for counting by each subject, at that point where they “get” the new idea either by description or when they suddenly realize/recognize a better method.

In telling jokes, also, there would be a P300 when they get the joke as compared to when they did not, showing again, that the COMP underlies telling jokes and humor of most all types. This would confirm the COMP/dopamine boost aspect of known humor, rather convincingly. And using the fMRI/MEG plus MagStim points method, would show where in the brain this humor is being mediated. The same for music, for swearing center location, the conscience in the frontal lobes, and so forth. Exploring up and down the cortices of the brain, going over each gyrus in whole brain with ever finer and finer investigations. We see here, in the Praxis, the value of the comparison process which can not only empirically and introspectively see inside, and explain our minds/brains, but find ways to decode and understand our minds/brains. This is the power of the Comparison Process model.

It means that the Tarab of Oum Kalthoum can be studied in those listening to her. It means that basic human thinking processes will be open to study, as well, from math, to music, from the sciences to the arts. Most all human brain activities of the cortex can then be more carefully studied.
Let us think about one more subject, that of exactly how, what kind of stimulus is necessary for Long Term Memories to be laid down.

Clearly, we know that it’s due to repeated reinforcements. The more we go over something, the more likely it is to be remembered, and more easily recalled. This is called facilitation in neurophysiological terms.

But consider what happens during highly charged emotional moments. This will very likely enlighten us as to the nature of what is going on. During those times, such as Archimedes “Eureka!” moment, or those mountain top experiences we all have had, there is a LOT more dopamine release and much longer reinforcements to memory being made. How often do we have to purposefully reinforce those awe filled moments to recall them? Not often. It gets done by the high dopamine release those events create.

That’s the secret, we see. Some dopamine release is seen at most all creative and recognition events. Some more so than others. It’s the dopamine boost, which begins the LTM event of protein synthesis and synapse creation, which creates the stability of the Long Term Memory traces, which Wilder Penfield found in his noteworthy studies on living brain in Montreal. Those stable memory traces are what create the platform upon which our consciousness and thinking are founded and stabilized. More in the article on “Brain Hard wiring”.

Further consider what happens when photic stimulation occurs. The brain will create an evoked potential which is visible on the EEG. Similar effects have been seen during music played with a heavy beat. These will entrain widely the brain. It can have almost an hypnotic effect on people alone or in groups. Thus the tarab of Cairo, the effects of rock groups, the crowds’ responses to a charismatic speaker. The effect of the 1-2, 1-2 of 4/4 time beats of the marching band we hear as it passes by.

When we see flocks of birds flying, as they veer and fly together, to schooling of fishes, or the herd behaviors of animals running. How is this any different than our entrainment when people sing in choirs or play in a band or orchestra, together, when they become as one? This is the social entrainment effect. If CER were done with those in such collective groups, we would see the careful and close entrainment of visual and sensory evoked responses acting as one in those groups of players. The same with a good movie, where all were on the edges of their seat during scenes of brilliantly acted and produced scenes. Or in the listeners to those inspiring choirs, and orchestras. They would be entrained just a birds and fish fly together.

What of empirical introspection? The investigation of CER can surely give insights and confirmations of it, esp. in known tasks, such as indexing and reading indexes looking for a specific target word or word placement in indexing.

So, we see the Comparison Process as work, finding correspondences, relationships, associations and creativity, which bring us better understanding and the best performances of our species.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/expanding-our-view-of-vision-0126

brain mapping using combined fMRI and MEG

Target words: Recognition; cognition; Comparison Process; Cortical evoked potentials; Functional MRI (fMRI); Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG); Magnetic stimulation of brain (MagStim); Humor, Long Term Memory. Dopamine

Le Chanson Sans Fin: Table of Contents

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/