The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

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

It’s largely now apparent that complex system approaches can be extended to thermodynamics, in order to create a unifying method which combines the dominant models of the sciences: complex systems as the umbrella and unifying methods of comparison process method; Thermodynamics, relativity & quantum mechanics as the probabilistic model which describes best at present the complexities of such universal systems.

 .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be seen to have many characteristics, which are also seen in complex systems. Initially, it was called the entropy/disorder rule, wherein energy release maximizes, thus reducing order, and maximizing entropy. But there is another aspect to the 2nd law, and that is least action, least free energy, least energy, and the maximizing of energy diffusion as well as mass concentrations being diffused. Also called the minimalist principle, and has been known in one form or another since the later 1700’s. James Hamilton called it least action. LaGrange used it to find the least energy L1, L2, L3, and nearly completely stable L4 & L5 points in the earth-moon system.
 .
Least energy as it can be most simply called & applied, means that systems strongly tend to reach least energy configurations. Calling it least energy also allows it more simply to be applied to the many aspects of least energy, which we see in the real world examples. Least energy in manufacturing, as W. Edwards Demming began to develop his “efficiency” methods, means least time to manufacture, least costs, least amount of materials being used; least activities in moving materials and products around during manufacturing, and in short, all the myriad ways Least Energy can be applied & used to create efficiency increases & thus the advantages of surplus energy, time, materials, money, and so forth. That is, growth potential.
 .
Apple Computer as the largest corporation on earth, developed those products which not only were highly efficient, easy and fun to use, but so well marketed, their least energy production and marketing methods, gave them the highest profits both by percentage and totals, ever seen, due to Steve Jobs’ outstanding talents. He united telecommunications, neatly, efficiently and usably with computers, thus doing a very great deal with a product which could be held in one hand. Least energy efficiencies, indeed!!
 .
The multiplicity of the apps of least energy rules is its chief feature and in having these characteristics, show it’s very likely a complex system & approach. It’s not just A, or not A , but a rich panoply, plethora of outcomes possible which create the time, energy and cost savings in manufacture and the service industries.
 .
Thus Least energy underlies the efficiencies of Adam Smith, the “invisible hand of the markets”, as a deeper analysis and more fruitful, and thus applicable means to create the growth created by those efficiencies.
 .
See:
 .
There is yet another point in all of this. Synonyms and the previously related extensions of those by “word clusters” shows this multiplicity of methods and forms as existing and real. The Analogy synonyms are a good example of this. Hofstadter initially discussed this as a wide application of his cognitive work in “Godel, Escher, Bach….” and his conceptualization can be seen as a basis for the deeper and wider comparison process and thus complex system applications.
 .
Thus the many ways in which we describe the Least Energy rule also show its synonymic and complex system nature.
 .
Analogy, metaphor, simile, anecdote, parable, fable, story, koan, many myths, etc. are all the many types of comparison processing which can be used to explain, demonstrate, and teach new concepts and ideas.  But there is the complex system aspect here, too.
 .
Of the multiplicity of comparison process methods present and real, too. Of the many phrases of words, which ALSO describe such methods. Take the synonym group of “Understanding”: comprehension, insight, apprehension, Know-how. Also, making sense, seeing the connections, seeing/visualizing, connecting the dots, working it out; the entire synonym/word cluster grouping, which shows the many ways in which we use the “understanding” words to “figure out” what we are trying to show, explain and do. Thus the word clusters/synonyms show us the multiplicity of ways we do things. The methods, techniques, skills, styles, technologies, etc.
 .
The multiplicities of the synonym & word clusters are there BECAUSE of the complex system nature of events in our universe. We create & use language to show the myriads of ways of complex systems. This then deepens our understandings of complex systems by showing more of the vast ways that things are done. More of the myriad aspects of words which reflect the many ways in which events can be understood, classified and described. Synonyms/word clusters are part and parcel of the complex system descriptions of our universe of events. That’s where they come from and which the word cluster extension also develops and explicates as well.
 .
This then describes the multiplicity of the ways in which we apply, understand and use the Least Energy rules. It’s complex system!!! And begins to unite the models of our universe by a deeper understanding of these multiplicities, such as the many dopamine and catecholamine receptors sites, as showing a complex system at work. & all the other myriads of kinds of receptor sites doing much the same. The many “side effects” of drugs, which are in fact complex system effects, and the many receptor sites for insulin, neurochemicals and many other instances. Each are formed of the same deeper method working, comparison process and creating standards of word categories, and measuring standards to create information as well as comprehend events.
 .
There are MANY other key aspects of the complex system nature and characteristics of Least energy. A major form of which is stability. Least energy molecules CO2 and H2O are molecules from which no further chemical energy can be obtained. It requires a great deal of activation energy to convert those two into sugars & starches, which the plants can do. Thus stability is a major aspect of least energy. The orbits of the planets are least energy. And the Newtonian N=2 gravitational laws are ALSO least energy solutions to orbits. This largely, however ignores the complex system of the solar system, N=9 and more, but have touched upon that topic before, too.
The ancient Egyptian triad, or trinity, of Uas (power, force), Djed (the backbone of Osiris, stability) and Ankh, (life), shows this. They elevated stability to a great part of how they viewed events. Thus, embodying efficiency and least energy implicitly in their understandings of events. As they strove towards stability, so they also achieved efficiency and by implication, thermodynamic least energy outcomes.
 .
Even as the Efficiencies of the market Adam Smith called the “invisible hand” guide market growth and development.
 .
And this growth and development as referred to above is yet another aspect of least energy. And it can describe events from avalanches, to market forces, to embryological growth, also. Most all growth in the natural world is least energy driven, from our basic innovations which succeed because they develop surpluses which can be fed back into the system to create growth, such as the obvious, profits. So the 2nd Law has thus Many aspects to it, which are complex system. And in this way, we extend & deepen our understanding by melding and integrating complex system thinking into thermodynamics, as well.
 .
In describing the methods by which professionals approach their jobs, we find the fox and the hedgehog analogy. The Foxes know a very great many things, and use this complicated, but not coherent set of lists and methods to do their work. But the hedgehog, he knows one big thing!  And that’s what’s going on here. Complex systems require a very great deal of information to handle, use and understand them. & the foxes use the” splitter” method of knowing lots of details and methods to handle it. But the lumper, the hedgehog, knows a big concept, model, theory to handle it all. Simplifying the mass of data into a single, unified model.
 .
In the same way,
 .
 .
For instance, Newtonian orbital equations simplifies most all N=2 orbiting bodies into a single, least energy equation, which describes ALL of the orbits, rather uniquely. As compared to the foxes who have the details and must know the descriptions of all of the orbits of all of the planets in all of the 200+ Billions of star systems in our galaxy, alone.  The least energy Newtonian method wins by least energy!!
 .
In Shannon’s Information Theory, order, disorder and information have deep implications and relationships. The more the order, and precise, detailed description of events there are, the more information is there and the less entropy. Again, least energy extends I.T. And in addition, because incompleteness can be shown to be less order and more entropy in comparison to higher to lower information events. it becomes clear. Incompleteness is very likely least energy relationships as well.
 .
Further, the more complete a model is, the less entropy; the more information and more descriptions it holds. The caveat is that the method must also be more efficient, not just a better description, more complete. This doubles up the creative, innovative new model’s value. And because we know from the Second law that perfect efficiency is very unlikely, if not impossible, we know very likely that complete descriptions of events are also unlikely. That most all our models are necessarily NOT complete. Thus there may be almost always much room for improvement in our models.
 .
Besides the subtleties of incompleteness, there is that of simplicity. A more complete model simplifies all of the details, and links greater relationships to this increase in simplicity. This is yet another aspect of least energy. Or to quote H. D. Thoreau, “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
 .
The major trait of new effective models is that they are elegant, explain much with little (simplicity), they are fruitful, giving many, important new insights and find many new and often unexpected findings. And that they are by Shannon’s rules, more complete, describe more with less, as well.
 .
Let’s take the Periodic chart of the elements and examine it from these new epistemologies and paradigms. How did Mendeleev find this organization of the elements? Let’s use these methods to empirically look into how his mind worked. He knew that elements, intrinsically could not be broken down into smaller parts by normal chemical means available at the time. Thus, they were stable, being least energy atomically. Further, he began to see patterns, the before mentioned pattern recognition that follows basic recognitions, when the recognitions are fed back into the comparison processing systems. That created the next category as he knew lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium were all chemically very similar. His brain recognized this high similarity. So he grouped them in a linear, vertical line just under hydrogen, also with 1+ charge, we now know. Showing how bonding concepts flowed directly from this grouping of the alkali metals, the first hierarchy of the elements. Thus proving the hierarchical nature of the periodic chart and grouping with the many other taxonomies of our understanding by those uniting relationships.
 .
Then he saw that NaCl, common salt, linked the alkali metal, Na, to chloride. And also, iodine, fluorine, bromine, and so forth. Using the alkali metals as a basic standard he created the halogen linear standard.
 .
And at once given their weights realized that there were elements to the right and left of Li and F, as well as the next series Na and Chloride. He had created the outlines of the periodic chart. and all that was left was filling it in. His model was therefore, HIGHLY fruitful, not only in bonding characteristics, but in relating all of the elements into a chart reflecting their fundamental relationships of weights, atomic numbers, etc. Which also over time gave rise to nuclear models of the atoms, as well as the isotopes. AND he realized not only were there gaps in the chart, but that those could be found, as well. Thus it’s massive fruitfulness; again, the power of a good model.
 .
He knew of neon, argon, krypton, but realized there was another element missing above neon, which was only found first in the sun much later, and then on the earth. Helium4 was put into its place. The chart was predicting outcomes, which were unexpected!!! And so rubidium was found below cesium, and francium below and so forth.
 .
Finding beryllium, he put that next to lithium, and then ID’d those elements which combined with 2 halogens, as well. and on and on he went, with the heavier weight elements following each of them together. He’d found the grand design of the elements. And note how this comparison process model, models very accurately his modeling, as it does the models of Darwin/Wallace for evolution and how Edison found, by Trial & Error, his amazing discoveries, creations. As it does indeed Einstein and most all other creative acts.
 .
And this is how most all of our anatomies, taxonomies, hierarchies, & classifications are built up. Not ignoring the alphabetic hierarchies of the dictionaries, thesauri, indices, telephone and city directories, and maps, which show how all on those classifications are related to most everything else, there, too. Alphabetic systems are used, with numbers, to rank together words whose relationships are not known, but need to be organized so they can all be listed, organized & understood.
 .
And within the dictionary, which are least energy classifications using ordering by alphabets are also least energy. & within the dictionaries, we can find THESE least energy classifications, which correspond to groupings unsuspected in linguistics, largely least energy. We find the repeating words, beginning with “re-“, 1000’s of them in fact. Reiteration, reflect, re-organize, remind, reconsider, remember and most importantly, recognize, etc. And those similar words, such as again and again, forever and ever, etc., etc., etc, which reflect the repeating events in existence and map and describe those very, very well.
 .
In addition, and this has been missed, we find the “com” words, in all their nearly unlimited forms, again, the “cum” words from the parent Latin word, which go together under the “com” sections, and many others, as well. Those are the “go together” words, the “KO-ine’ related words. Cooperate, company, commiserate, and so forth. & yet, each of those are groups of events which can be connected, and collected together. Hiding all the time, and disguising and camouflaging the parent of the entire organization, “comparison”!  These are the depths within depths, and yet there are far, far more in the dictionary. Without limit, too. & anyone can open up the dictionary and find many of those and many other examples too many here to relate.
 .
We find the hierarchies of the “high higher highest” grouping of the comparative adjectives, and the “low lower lowest” forms, or the “some, more most”, and “some lesser and least”, to show how many kinds those are, which although NOT grouped together in the dictionary ARE grouped together as the 3 forms of linear adjectives which describe, and can be used to create linear numerical groupings as well.
 .
There are the least energy, vast numbers of contractions (can’t, weren’t), acronyms (NASA, FBI), and abbreviations (abbrev, etc.), which are ALSO least energy forms, too. Seen often in slang, esp. the Aussie -o ending for funnel web spider, the funno, and so forth. Again, least energy forms in all the myriad ways.
 .
Returning to the “com” words we see depths within depths again, just as Mendeleev did, in the commons, commiseration, company forms. But hidden there are the collection, com-lection changed to collection to save a consonant and thus time. Corroboration instead of com-roboration. Again, hiding the “com” words in all their myriads of ways. Those missed by linguistics not understanding the Least energy rules and applying those deeply widely and without limit to the words, themselves.  And the lovely co-re-spond being an “re-” word as well as a “com” word. And the same with com-re-lation, correlation. Without limits. least energy forms!!! All of this missed, too.
 .
And yet there are MORE depths within depths of least energy rules.
 .
Knowing Latin we know of the ab  and ex prepositions. So for “abfection, we get affection; and likewise for ex-fection, we get effection, saving yet another letter/consonant and time/energy in saying the words. And those are also without limit, too. arrogate, instead of ab-rogate. Affliction shortening now ab-fliction.  & on and on as we can find literally numbers without limit of those all over the dictionaries. Thus we have applied the comparison processes which created the periodic chart of the elements to the dictionaries to find again, those relationships and categories of many, many kinds of words which heretofore have been missed.
 .
There are many many other examples of many kind of word groups, which there is no time nor space to relate. See what you can find which is original, new and not expected, the fruitfullness of this approach is at once apparent again!!!
 .
These show the vast efficeincies and apps of the comparison processing and least energy methods. Without limits.
 .
But furthermore as well, we know that as our models are most all incomplete, that they can become MORE complete by work of trial and error and related processes. Thus we have the means, without limit, & most all of our methods can be “improved” without limit, virtually. because no matter how efficient they might be compared to earlier methods, they still have room for improvement.
 .
This necessarily contemplates and implies that there likely exist unlimited improvements in our ways of doing things. Our models, our technologies, skills, devices, tools and methods can be improved without limit, Up to a point of diminishing returns. And means that once realizing this, we can always find ways to get better from there.
 .
Further still, the skills of the professionals compared, versus those of the amateurs can now be understood as efficient methods developed over time, by trial and error. We can apply least energy rules here as well, without limit, and the applications of these can change and improve education in ALL fields. Comparison processing and least energy are universally applicable
 .
For instance, We can take a group of 12 highly skilled professionals & studying their styles and methods of doing things for the specific methods each uses. Then comparing those dozen persona & their myriads of similar and different methods for efficiency. & Then teaching those specific, now unknown, but which can be found with careful observation and work, methods which are very efficient. Then teaching those advanced methods to students, specifically. This will speed up education substantially. and because it’s a universal application, likewise likely applying to ALL fields, to improve and upgrade our professionals without limits. This is the Promised Land.
 .
These are but a few of the multiplicities of implications, developments and possibilities which can be created by the complex system approach to the 2nd Law. Unlimited growth and an efflorescence of creativity and outputs in the sciences & arts, and indeed in all fields, unparalleled in human history!!  All because the the applications fo the complex systems, comparison process and unlimited methods, and least energy rules. This is the promised land of the undiscovered country. Unlimited cultural nd scientific developments potentially dwarfing most anything which has ever been seen before.
 .
Least Energy Rules…….

Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1
https://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
https://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
https://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
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3
https://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
https://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
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process
https://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)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit
https://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

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

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

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

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

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

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

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

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

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

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

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

24  Imaging the Conscience.

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

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/comparison-process-creativity-and-linguistics-analyzing-a-movie/

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-mothers-wisdom/

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-fox-the-hedgehog/

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sequoias-parkinsons-and-space-sickness/

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/evolution-growth-development-a-deeper-understanding/

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/explandum-6-understanding-complex-systems/

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-promised-land-of-the-undiscovered-country-towards-universal-understanding-2/

32. The Power of Proliferation

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/the-power-of-proliferation/

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/a-field-trip-into-our-understanding/

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

(35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI, this was deleted after being posted, and it’s not known how it occurred.)

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

35. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/the-structure-of-color-vision/

36. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/le-chanson-sans-fin-table-of-contents-2/

37. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/the-structure-of-color-vision-2/

38. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/stabilities-repetitions-confirmability/

39. The Balanced Brain

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-balanced-brain/

40. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/the-limits-to-linear-thinking-methods/

.

41. Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/melding-cognitive-neuroscience-behaviorism/

42. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai/

43.  Do Neutron Stars develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/do-neutron-stars-develop-into-white-dwarfs-by-mass-loss/

44. An Infinity of Flavors ?                             https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/an-infinity-of-flavors/

45. The Origin of Infomration & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/origins-of-information-understanding/

46. The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-complex-system-of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

Origins of Information & Understanding

Origins of Information & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

 

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

Working with the comparison process, comparison methods, Least energy, Complex systems, and structure/function methods, the complex system origins of information have become clear.

From the article on “Descriptions and Measurement”,

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemathdescriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

Essentially, this strong origin & deep equivalency of the outputs of language, verbal description, and measurement, mathematical description or numericity can be easily established. It’s best exemplified and most easily shown to be the case using measurement and the Einsteinian relativity epistemology this implies. First, take a simple saw cut wooden stick of sorts. Lay it down next to a meter stick and compare the length of the stick and read off the length in centimeters. This act essentially, by comparing the relatively fixed, stable measuring standard of the metric system, then shows about 19.5 cm. in length. Measuring the width we see about 10.2 cm. in width, and about 2.1 cm. in height. We have just created information about the stick haven’t we? It’s numerical information, but the comparison of the centimeter scale does that. Using a relatively fixed, standard, mercury thermometer, we then compare the temp of  water on the scale, measure it at for instance, 72 degrees C. This creates information/data about the water temp. Hanging the same thermometer in the air out of sunlight, we can read the ambient air temperature as well. This also creates numerical data, description and information, does it not?  Thus comparing a mass of a simple metal block on a balance scale, we place set gram standards on the opposite scale, and find the balance at 85.5 gms, for instance. This creates data, info.

Thus it is with each measuring scale we use, regardless of speed, velocity (kms/hr, for instance), hardness, Moh’s scale or Kilo-pascal measurements, even density, which is the ratio, comparison of mass/volume. In each case, we get a measure, numerical description of each event we measure by comparison. Thus, most all measurement is a comparison against a relatively fixed, standard measuring device. And that creates data, which was not there before, by comparison processing of the event. This is very clear. Measuring of most all kinds creates information.

Now, to extend further this same model of verbal description, measurement using language.  We have a standard scale for color, which is ROY G BIV; basically, red, orange, yellow, Green, etc., by which we use in comparison to describe colors. We know what green is, as it’s largely the colors of plant leaves. We know the reds of sunrise and sunset and the blues of the sky. We know the white of clouds, and the black of night, and the unlimited grays in between, the white to black color scales, which we use to describe colors of objects. So we sight a cloud, and we call it grey, comparing to our Long term memory (LTM) recognition of what that color means, do we not? The comparison process drives the recognition, that is the “re-knowing” of the comparison to our memory of any and all colors. Thus color descriptions which are verbally created also create color information which is verbal and using such standard words, which reflect our standardized, conventions for each color. That processing of sensory information creates information/data of colors. Which we can then write down and record this measurement, just as we do with lengths, temps, hardnesses, etc. Sensory information is thus processed by comparison to create information and data. The processing of internal information occurs in the same way as we recognize pain, pleasure, areas of our bodies which are moving and hurting, too.

This data is then processed to the larger concepts which create our knowledge and understandings. We know that grass is green, tho of many shades. In the category of “green”: we know this to be the case. Thus our descriptions are kinds of data generation based upon our LTM standards/references.

Take adjectives, for instance. We have the base adjectival form, high. Then the higher, and last, the highest. How this scale using low, lower lowest works, is strictly analogous to a number line being linear, as well. The base form, the last, the superlative, often marked by the ending, -est, or -st, Identifies this usage. But the middle form is the “Comparative” And there it is again, hiding in our language, as all the high, higher, highest forms, within all their myriad ways are the same comparison processing. Bigger than a bread box, smaller than a pea or marble. Big as a house. Fast as a falcon, faster than a speeding bullet. Most all are simply comparing new events to our LTM and creating data regarding the event, are they not? Thus our verbal descriptions do give meaning by these unlimited forms of comparison standards, which we call words.

Please peruse the 1/3 central section of the article beginning “But there are deeper depths within depths hidden in our language and here….”

This is where meaning comes from. Data/info from comparison standards built into each word. And this is why language is so complex. Each word acts as a comparison standard, just like our more limited measuring scales, does it not? And derived by the same comparison processing of sensory & internal data, as well. Thus as stated in the above article, description verbal is the equivalent of measuring numerically. Will not go into why we use math at all, except to say it’s least energy.

Thus we have the basis of most verbal language and how it describes most all sensory events, AND the relationships/associates of such events. Our understanding is very simple, given by the not widely recognized keen neuroscientist, Albert Einstein, who wrote in his 1936 book, “Physics and Reality” that essentially, understanding was derived from the relationships of events to each other. This deep insight readily provides a basic standard to understand how we know how events are related, and how things work. Structure/function relationships are a widely used method in this type.

We derive relationships by comparing events in existence to words, and then comparing those ideas/words to each other. In the same way we explain words in terms of other, related words, do we not? Thus this complex network of words, each acting as standard, relatively fixed meaning, compares and measures most all others in some way.

This formally explains the previously not stated means within our cortices of how it works.
This kind of complexity is essentially why AI doesn’t “understand” how language works. Comparison processes which create recognition of all sorts, work within this method. Bayesian math is used with massive number crunching to find the words to describe events in existence, that is to recognize, that is to Comparison process data to give names to images, faces, and so forth. Those early AI systems also give meanings to sounds, which are standardized versions of words, which then in turn related generally to the categories of descriptions which we call ideas.
This simple system largely describes most all languages, and how they relate to each other. And why

Ich bin Hier.
Je suis ici.
Estoy aqui.
Hic sum.  &
I am here.

Each uniquely translates the others, by a close identity among these expressions.

In the same way, the words in a single language can all translate each word into others which explain, identify, and describe what each word means. In the same way, words are used to describe all parts of mathematics. But not this comparison. Very few words can be efficiently expressed mathematically!! And that shows the problems of using math alone, to describe verbal descriptions. While words are used to teach math, math cannot be used to teach most all words. This shows exactly why numericity is not translatable to efficiently expressing most all of Shakespeare for example. Or as Ulam stated, most presciently, so many years ago, mathematics must advance substantially before it can describe complex systems (viz. language). This is a VIP point. And strikes to the heart of the AI problem.

But there is a way around this, and it’s Bayesian methodologies. And that’s why the above article on AI is also relevant here. AI cannot figure meaning. And it cannot because meaning is NOT inherent in mathematics, universally, as it is in ideas/words. Meaning can, however, be given to words by using the same kinds of standardization of word meanings by comparison processing of words. That simple model shows how to create general AI using languages. Words are complex, they have many denotations and connotations. They have many contextual meanings as well. All of this driven by comparison processing, which is WHY context of the meanings of words can be derived by comparing the words around the unknown word. Context verbal, social, and implied is everything many times in language., And this again, shows HOW to use the recognition potential of Bayesian math to create valid language and meanings. How to get the AI system to “understand” words and their meanings. By comprehensive understanding of what each word means, in comparison to the social, verbal contexts of the other words around it, meaning is derived by our human brains which have general intelligence.

And that’s the point here. Our words create descriptions of many kinds of events, from pain, to the emotions, to feelings, to specific forms of loves, and our brains’ language centers, augmented by the various visual, motor and spatial and auditory centers, all work together, to create meanings.

Thus we end this simplified version of what’s going on to create information in brain by looking at the wellsprings of creativity. & it’s simple. Recognition creates a ‘re-knowing’ of events. Comparing LTM of events creates knowledge by a standard, relatively fixed (but efficiently, to extend Einstein’s epistemology and use a thermodynamic term)  and that’s how it goes. The systems is efficient, too.)

So thus we have the wellsprings, the roots, the origins of creativity. Each time we ID a new event via LTM comparison, that is recognition, we are Creating new knowledge, facts, information, data. When we understand that blue-green is a mix of blue and green, we have done this. When we understand the relationship between pi as the comparison, ratio, proportion of the Circumference to the diameter of a circle, then we have new knowledge. This creates a NEW standard, Pi, and also as it’s comparison process, that is algebra, we can describe it verbally, as well as mathematically, because those related terms all translate efficiently and fairly exactly into each other. We have found a way to express our words in terms of numbers, and given those numericities. This is but a simple, however, cameo part of understanding and creativity. This new ratio, pi, can be used as a comparative standard to describe the numerical relationships between a circle and a piece of a circle. The volume of a sphere and area of a circle, and of arcs of known degrees, the lengths of such arcs, and so forth. The complex relationship of Pi to spherical geometries are well worked out.

This is how creativity works with words, at first. We see a new relationship. We see a new kind of beetle. And we find the elytron, the abdomen, and the jointed 6 legs, and the cephalon, thorax, and the wings, as well. Thus, we ID and create the data to fit into the category of beetle. We do the same kind of creative work via the history in the medical work up and create a diagnosis by comparing known diagnostic cases this way.

In radiology, an even more clear way to show this, we “read’ the chest x-ray, PA and left lateral and “compare” it to the known, clear cut, descriptive, NOT mathematical standards of what we know the heart should look like. What we know how the bones should appear to be in the ribs, spine (cervical, thoracic, etc), scapulae, clavicles, etc Those reading X-rays know this, intuitively, but it’s not been formally stated before. We have set, efficient, standardized words & X-ray reading methods which describe what’s normal. and by comparing those to the complex issues of “normalcy” regarding an image, be it CT, MRI, angiographic, ultrasound, etc. We compare those set normal standards to what we see. & then with a known set of Not normals, we ID the condition and “make the creative diagnosis, by comparison processing of recognitions. This is how it’s done. This tells precisely how to create AI diagnoses of all types of radiological images.

Have written about this before, in the discussion of styles, methods, skills used by professionals. and how we know [professionals from amateurs. It’s all the same thing. Professionals use highly efficient, standardized comparison methods which let them do their work. Comparing to amateurs, they do the work faster, better, with fewer problems, and with greater completion and outcomes. Thus, they are efficient, that is least energy in all those fields.

Thus, with radiologists, we take the best 12 radiologists we can find in each radiographic procedure. ID what the methods they use for “standard of normal”, against which they compare each image. And also find those ‘standard of abnormal identification/recognition they use to find the variations of normal versus not normal. Once those are ID’d, and then fed into an AI system, not only can we teach medical students, nurses and technicians of all kinds how to read each of those studies, much faster, but we can actually teach AI systems how to do this as well.

But there is a deeper understanding here. Because each of those standards of description and recognition of normal versus not normal are clearly identifiable, & can be written down, we can exam, study and work on each method used to make it MORE efficient, more streamlined, more Least energy applied and with out limit improve each comparison method/device/skill, until it grows better and better, without limit. Because each method/skill is NOT perfect, but necessarily incomplete, thus thermodynamic, has a limited efficiency, most all can be improved on this scale.  This can create improvement without limit, up the exponential scale of the unapproachable “perfect thermodynamics efficiency” scale. This is what’s offered with the comparison process model of what creates knowledge and information/data & understanding. Unlimited growth in efficiency.

And that of course, is the bottom line of professionalism, how we create information and knowledge, how we understand, and how we mathematize verbal descriptions of all kinds. This is the Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country of complex systems understanding. & there it is.

An Infinity of Flavors?

 
By Herb Wiggins, MD, Clinical Neurosciences, Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process Logics, 14 Mar. 2014
..

This is really interesting, because there are many depths and aspects of interest in taste coming from the tongue.

The tongue is the most richly innervated and endowed with sensations of ANY organ in the body. It can detect proprioception, that is position of itself and all parts of itself. Further, because the tongue can change shape, position, and move all over inside the mouth, this shows it has a very sensitive nature. No other organ can move in so many ways, in 3-D other than the tongue.  It helps us speak, drives good diction, and allows many more sounds to be made, than can be made without it.

It can feel pain, points, and feel something moving over its surface, too. Senses hot and cold and the cools/warmths in between. Can detect vibratory senses, and all of the senses in our fingers, are ALSO within the tongue’s vast capabilities.

But the very most interesting is that of taste. It can do that too, and no where else is this seen. There are said to be a number of basic flavors, but this is likely not complete. Sour/acids, sugars/sweet; bitter, for avoiding alkaloids, many of which are very toxic; the milk taste, also of meat; salt flavors, salt being necessary to our very survival.

But there are others, in fact, without limits. There is the taste of metal, when we put a penny on the tongue, for instance. And related to that metallic taste is the taste of blood, and why that’s special, a distinctive flavor there is very much an important issue. Self survival, as well as tasting meat. Who has not tasted the startling & special flavor of blood from a cut lip? OR a bitten tongue? It DOES get our attention, is not?

Then there are those tastes without limit which are combination tastes. We taste a dominant flavor of a fruit for instance. And then compare that taste to the bread we had several minutes ago, and it’s NO longer the Same. Flavors can meld/mix with other flavors and create unusual combination flavors without end, or compound flavors.

Those are endless. Even the spicy flavor, burning sensation we get with peppers and black pepper are additional tastes, as well. And those can create compound flavors with tomatoes and other fruits, such as strawberries.

Now, do this calculation. If we have a mixture of flavors, the combination of the flavors is the Factorial (!), of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4, and so forth, which becomes a VERY great number within a few flavors. With 10 different flavors interacting in comparison, there are potentially 3.6 millions of flavor combinations possible. AND, consider moreover that when a new taste combo is create, THAT can interact with another 3.6 M flavors, to potentially create more kinds.

So, likely we can explore the worlds of compound flavors forever and even taste, like those who explore a Mandelbrot design find a part no one has EVER seen before, either. The same with unlimited flavors. A unique flavor which no one else has EVER tasted before!!

This can be done by empirical introspection and asking fo valid questions of the tasters. The comparison process is uniquely capable of doing this, as has been explained in detail, before in Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process.

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

Who knows what unusual and interesting flavors can be created by careful, systematic exploration, which Could take the world of cuisine by storm, once they are found?

Endlessness of flavors. Unlimitted kinds/varieties of tastes. Brought to you by your tongue!!

These are the depths within depths even of our lowly tongues. A Near infinity of flavors!!

Who’d have thunk it?

Do Neutron Stars Develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?

By Herb Wiggins, MD;  8 Feb. 2017

There’s an interesting omission in these articles was HOW the white dwarf was also a pulsar and WHERE it came from.

There is a real possibility here. First of all a neutron star for physical reasons, the n –> p+ & e-, and an antineutrino. This process will take place probabilistically, and result in most antineutrino emissions as they are small enough to escape, and occ. electron emissions, as well. Whether or not an active pulsar will also tend to evaporate mass by such processes, among others, is a real question.

But what happens in a pulsar very close to the limits of mass of becoming a white dwarf, esp. if a steady draining away of mass by many processes is ongoing? It may well turn into a white dwarf AND retain the magnetic field of a pulsar. Thus, this presents a kind of neutron star which by mass loss (ejection of mass) and the constant loss of antineutrinos will eventually in some cases, become a White dwarf.

Further, if electrons are lost by the highly energy processes going on in neutron stars, the neutron star will become very, very massively positively charged. This could, theoretically create a magnetar as well, and with mass loss become a white dwarf, tho still highly charged and acting like a pulsar.

If the positive charge becomes high enough, it could result in a large mass ejection of positively charged material, which could further reduce the mass of the NS, speeding its way to becoming a white dwarf.

This model accounts for the super high magnetic fields of neutron stars, for magnetars, as well as the eventual development by mass loss of a pulsar into a white dwarf with a high magnetic field. Thus it simply accounts for much with little. And the finding of a pulsar type white dwarf, may be the first evidence for such processes of mass loss ongoing in neutron stars.

Neutron stars may well develop into white dwarves in some cases.

 

An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
 .
Have been following Jeffrey Hawkins’ work with some interest, and note work in visual systems. It’s likely that Jeff Hawkins has the closest working model to creating a good simulation of AI.
.
These insights which may help facilitate creating AI & can be explained in  detail using concepts of comparison process and comparison methods, structure/function relationships, least energy, complex systems thinking, and related methods.
.
Using structure/function relationships (clinico-pathological correlation) traditionally, we can generate & create unlimited information about how the brain works, and its corresponding outputs, vision, language, motor/sensory thinking, memory, and so forth. These tools which have seemed to work for me to create higher brain functions right off the cortex, the mind brain interface, (cortical columns of Mountcastle), are S/F relationships, found by the millions in clinical comparisons between lesions in brain and functional deficits, & are self evident to us all. However, using a comparison process model, which largely operates in the CC’s, a very much better understanding can be found.
.
The model is both elegant, simplifying, as well as highly fruitful. Because a comparison can be made between or among most every event in existence both inside brain and outside (in the various permutations), it’s part and parcel of the structure/function method. And appears to be a universal tool. Least energy is also a comparison process, comparing energy, resources, time, and efficiencies of different methods, to find new insights. & likely universally applicable, too.
.
For instance, How does it happen that the brain is organized upside down & reversed right for left in humans, and very likely most normal primates, as well?
.
Right hemisphere controls left body and vice versa, in both motor and sensory homunculi. This is well known from teh time of Wilder Penfield and numerous published cases. The toes are at the top, & in the interhemispheric fissure. Then moving down the cortex of the motor strip comes the instep, the arch, the ankle, and the ankle is connected to the leg bones, & those to the knee, then the thighs, etc. The face is at the bottom, and the trunk and arms fit in between in a smooth transition. Why is this so? In addition, the visual system is also reversed right for left and upside down, with the sup. visual fields functions processed in the inf. occipital lobes and the inferior fields from 3 to 6 to 9 o’clock in the top parts of the visual cortex. & again, left field from 6 to 9, to 12 on the right visual cortex, & vice versa for the right visual fields.
 .
And there is the optic chiasm which takes the right visual field to the left, and vice versa, and the inferior fields to the superior cortex in a smooth transition of reversed upside down & right for left. & the decussations of the pyramids of the inf. brain stem take right sensori-motor afferents from the limbs to left brain, the same way as do the cortical efferents are taken right hemisphere to left body, also. So wherever we find the decussations of the pyramids, we know the brain is most likely upside and right for left oriented. and not just in humans & primates, but likely for most mammals, including the ancient marsupials, the platypus and echidna.
 .
Why & how does this arrangement come about? We hear of the top/down models which were fashionable a few years back, but were somehow not clearly satisfying, either. Somehow incomplete.
 .
The best, most efficient answer, & the key to understanding human/primate/mammalia brain neuroanatomy is quite simple. When we take a magnifying class, and hold it at arm’s length, comparing the images of the room around us, the image thru that double convex lens is reversed right for left and upside down. This is the visual comparison which shows us what’s going on. The eyes have it!  The brain is organized visually, and never in my years of study and work has this simple correlation/comparison been described nor discussed. It’s a deep and universal observation, spanning most higher animals. The ability to create new insights using visualization methods is highly human, and species specific. Altho some primates can copy our actions, the meaning of many actions, as in cargo cults, oftimes eludes them.
 .
Quite simply, we are visual creatures, & our brains are organized largely upon the images of events upon our retinas, and very likely least energy, as well. We have stereoscopic vision, different from other species whose visual fields rarely overlap, but for our cousins, the primates. The evidence is also in the internal capsule’s organization, that of the massive connections of the white matter to the cortices, and the internal mirroring deep structures of the globus pallida and the thalami as well. A truly universal structure/function comparison.
 .
But not only does this occur in humans and land mammals, but also in the dolphins, where the same decussation of pyramids are also seen. We don’t have to dissect these creature to see it, but simply image their nervous systems to find it. & thus we know their hypertrophied sound cortices also are organized in the same way, to highly and efficiently coordinate with the older visual systems. This is basic neuroanatomy, and although the top/down, old at bottom and younger at the top is interesting, it doesn’t have the depth, profundity & universality of the right for left, upside down features.  Even our cerebellum is organized the same, as well.
.
The comparison process when generally applied to data both within and and outside of us, gives us the ability to see events in new ways and relationships which we have missed. For instance, colour vision. How does this come about, this model of events in existence? We can compare our brains’ color system with the EM spectrum for new knowledge. We know that orange is a frequency of light in the spectrum. But not in the visual cortex. It can be generated by mixing yellow & red pigments, but still we perceive orange! Blue green, by mixing blue and green, where the blue-green, real and existing frequencies are there, but not a mix. And then purples by mixing blue and red. And browns, a highly significant colour for some colour blind persons, are red/green in combined EM frequencies. Show us by comparison the “brown” frequency in the spectrum!! It’s not there. Thus our rhodopsins interacting with photons’ black/white continuum, create the colours simply and elegantly by mixing. But they cannot convey to us the existence of the spectrum based upon frequency, even tho, in fact, it may use the energies of colours to detect those.
 .
Another insight is the rainbow, by which Newton was able to see frequencies of light by creating them from refraction. The rainbow is rare, or is it? In fact, it’s a daily phenomenon. Part of a Kuhnian revolution is “new seeing”. New comprehensions created by a new model. As Einstein once stated, “Every advance in physics is preceded by an epistemological advance.” This might also be true of neurosciences. Where IS the daily rainbow seen? Sunrise and sunset. First, it’s black, hardly any colour, then it’s IR with black/red. Then red, then orange, yellow, a bit of green, and then finally blue sky. We see the greens from the plants, and the browns as well, seeing bark and branches. & with the black and then shades of greys with clouds, the colour palette is set for us everyday. And at night once again with the sunset rainbow, too.
.
Consider that our eyes see colours at the brightest and most common frequencies which the sun creates, yellow/green, the center of our visual sensitivities. If an eye needed to detect light best, it would have highly receptive colour sensation for yellow/green. Which eyes do. Those frequencies, which the sun creates at its highest numbers of photons, thus brightest, give the greatest amount of information. It’s efficient, least energy. If we lived on a planet whose sun were yellow to slightly orange, our photopigments would be most sensitive at those frequencies, would they not? So our eyes are clearly attuned, evolutionarily & structurally to the sun. So is the rest of our nervous attuned closely to other common events in existence. As will be shown shortly. These are but a few of the  of the many kinds of insights which comparison process thinking can give.
.
These insights have been missed, for want of the comparison process and least energy tools. & perhaps, we can still see a lot, by just watching, to paraphrase Yogi Berra. Observation still trumps most all models, and creates, corrects, and extends them, too. & so the sciences are self-correcting by carefully observing repeating events in existence.
.
Thus do we find this comparison process which creates many methods to be useful. At your UC Berkeley campus, Dr. Paul J. Stark, PhD, Statistics chair, has a lovely video in which he discusses, “How do we know treatments have effects? The Methods of Comparison.”
.
.
“the effect is ubiquitous.” That is, universal in application. and he’s worked it out rather well, though he’s likely talking about methods, plural, rather than one. The comparison methods create information, and as Dr. Karl Friston states, regarding least energy (LE), it’s “consilient”. Crossing many fields in application, as Dr. Stark also writes. Pieces of this model are all over, but not yet fully integrated and developed. This is yet again more evidence of near universality.
.
Dr Friston’s works on connecting least energy to how brain functions is pretty well spot on and well worked out over the last 25 years. My work on evolution from the comparison, LE approach, pretty well confirms his, and that of others who’ve also seen those relationships when applying LE.
 .
 .
This is cutting edge evolutionary biology, but few have realized it. & at the heart of it lies LE and comparison processing.
 .
 .
When the comparison process and least energy are added in, we get a very great deal of information back out. The inputs and outputs of our CC’s can do this repeatedly, and even input outputs to create the hierarchies of our understandings. Essentially, our language and modeling systems are built upon this. Cognition psychology taught us a very great deal, but hasn’t progressed enough yet, tho intuitively  they realized that recognitions are basic & the case. But what is behind recognition? Clearly, it’s comparison process. When we perceive events in existence, we at once compare those to our long term memories, and if we find a match, we recognize it, that is we “re-know it”. The language, etymology reflect the structure which gave rise to it. and this is another key to understanding understanding and thinking about thinking.
 .
The constant calls to LTM for recognition and the learning which establishes those memories are very clearly related. Events in our universe repeat themselves multiply. Those which are important to us, reinforce themselves into LTM. These are the CC’s modeling the repeating events by reinforcement. & then we create our landmarks & so forth upon those perceived events. This is essentially the behaviorist model, but it’s missing big pieces, neurochemically and neurophysiologically. It’s incomplete, which will be shown below. The highly repeating events in existence, are yet another basic clue to AI and how it can be created. Plus they weigh in heavily with respect to confirmation of events in existence by the sciences.
 .
But when we want to understand description which is largely verbal, we also can find the quantitative version of description, measuring, most useful. When we take a ruler or tape to measure length, we compare the set, stable length standard to the event to be measured. This creates data, or information of length. & when we compare to a word standard, we describe relative to that standard, say a colour among the ROY G BIV standards. Is it red, or yellow, or green, or blue, etc.? So it’s likely that our descriptive measure of events, using words, which are primary, are intimately related by comparison processing to measuring standards as well. They both are comparison methods. Virtually all we do to create information & understanding is thus rooted in comparison processing in our cortices. Again, essential to creating AI.
 .
 .
Most words are likely descriptive standards which we compare to events in existence to understand those events. That is we relate them to events. and this is the point, it’s the comparison which creates the information and knowledge, as the measurement creates the data and information also. Ideas/Words are relatively arbitrary standards by which we measure events and describe them, qualitatively.
 .
For instance, “son”. We know how he is related to his parents, mother and father, his siblings, and his parent’s sibling as his aunts and uncles and his parent’s sibling. The “relatives” of the son are clear. This builds up the hierarchies of genealogies and how we are related to others in our families. The son has a father, as his father was a son, and can have a grandfather, too, or grandsons and so forth. Each comparison creates an hierarchy. Each relative has set specific relationships created and read by comparison processing. In order for AI to be able to function, it MUST be able to understand, create, and navigate the hierarchies of our understandings with simple facility. This could be termed a “hierarchical Turing test” for AI.
 .
And we see the hierarchies all around us. Comparison process both creates the hierarchies and navigates among them. The hierarchies of the dictionaries in alphabetic order, for instance.  Every word ordered by alphabetic comparison processes using trial and error, and dictionaries read by same process. It BOTH writes and reads, & is thus LE. It does lots with a little. The taxonomies of the species, in the millions; the taxonomies of the languages, both current and extinct, each finding its relationship to the others by hierarchic relationships among comparisons without limit of the words in each language (&/or dialects), and how those are related by “comparative linguistics” to the other. The Teutonic are clearly related by comparison, massively. The next hierarchy of the Indo-european. The Ungaro-altaic related to Suomi and Magyar, as well. Each, massively compared by words to the others. The Semitic languages, of ancient Egyptian, Arabic, Amharic, Coptic, Aramaic, etc., are all seen by massive comparison of words to be closely related languages. Each comparison combines to create a huge amount of data supporting the ubiquity and limitless use of comparison process, innate to our cortices. 34 millions of elements & compounds ordered in the IUPAC hierarchical listing, alone; all of them comparison process created, placed and read.
.
This is Einsteinian epistemology as well, because there are NO absolute measures or times or spaces, or much else. Most all that we measure is “relative”, that is, a comparison standard, which Einstein believed was arbitrary, but in fact is not likely that arbitrary. Thus does comparison process tie in neatly with the established facts of relativity, and explain it as well.
.
For instance, he stated that one could use any planet, or any position in our solar system as a fixed point to which we could relate everything else in the universe. But he missed this crucial point. Newtonian physics puts the sun at the center, because of least energy. Orbits about the sun are least energy. Orbits around the earth are not. Least energy rules, yet again. And this is the point. our linguistic standards, and the means by which are brains operate are NOT unlimitedly listings of complexities, but related to least energy rules as the standards. Thus our measuring systems, Hands for horse heights at the shoulder, and feet for length, are least energy. & based upon comparison to human anatomies, at first. Least energy rules are often the means by which we cut the Gordian knots of complexity.
.
For our senses we feel hot and cold. Hot, hotter, hottest, and cold, colder coldest. Hot, more hot, most hot, and cool, more cool and most cool. Notably, the central “hotter” words, etc., ARE the comparative forms!!! Again, language shows us the way, but we did not see those clear clues. Those scales are most all comparisons!! These are many instances of linear temperature scales.
 .
But put a warm object on a cold hand, and it will feel hot. Put a cold object on a cold hand and it will seem normal. or a cold object on a very warm hand? Extreme temperatures again. Sensation is thus largely comparison process, too. And we compare the relatively fixed standard of our temperature scales, based upon the STP boiling point of water and its vaporizing points, do we not? Simple, ubiquitous water, becomes the basis of human temperature scales. An efficient, stable standard is thus created by simplicity and the commonality of water.
 .
Hardness is the Moh’s relative scale to talc which is soft, limestone harder, corundum (sapphire) and diamond, hardest. Thus hardness description is also comparison process. Now we use GPA’s, but that is relative to a more standardized and thus more efficient hardness standard, is it not?
 .
And for visual images? Why should we think that the visual system uses our geometries for modeling the universe of events? Non-euclidean models the real universe, and neither do we see perfect circles, right angles, squares and triangles very much in the natural world, either. Instead, more fractal types of features, which are clearly NOT Euclidean, even as our space/time maths use non-euclidean geometries. And so for shapes the visual system uses curves and roundness, because those are the commonest features the occipital lobes detect. The mother’s face is marked by roundnesses and curves. That likely sets the standard for shape processing in our visual cortex.
 .
Thus, we see optical illusions, some of the commonest of which involve seeing straight lines as curved. Esp., the two straight lines drawn through a series of nested circles. This optical illusion is illustrative of all the others. and how to show those lines are NOT curved, which our visual systems insists they are? Take a clear plastic straight edge ruler and lay it down next to the straight line. and the illusion disappears at once. & generalizing, for nearly every optical illusion there is a comparison correction, or more than one, which will show the illusion. Again, recalling the colour generation of our visual systems, the comparison shows the illusion and the comparison correction(s) which fixes it. THAT is significant evidence again how the comparison process creates sensations of all sorts through central processing.
 .
 .
I referred this article to the Euro Radiological Society and am STILL getting hits after 2 years. & this is how we can further investigate how the visual system creates images, by the misfires of comparison processing in creating the whole, unlimited panoplies of optical illusions. Among those illusions lies the structure/function relationships about how our visual systems work. and not just ours, but most all animals with eyes, too.
 .
Radiology is simply reading images and reporting the findings. But how is this “reading” done? Simple, just like description and measurements are done against fixed standards to create meaning and insights, and new data/information. Each medical specialist, & the more so radiologists, have relatively fixed, efficient standards by which “normal” is judged. By comparing those standards by which they have learned efficiently to read images, they know using a set routine, if AP and lateral chest X-rays, by massive comparisons, are normal or not. The same for all MRI, fMRI, EEG’s, MEG’s, ultrasounds, arteriograms, etc., massive, standardized comparison processing. The same for lab data of patients which is compared to normal standard. How many more instances of comparison processing do we need to realize it’s ubiquitous & universal, and thus proved to exist? It’s self evident.
 .
What of the plate tectonics model in geology? It’s complex system, largely visual thinking, too. Setting up the standards of upwelling zones, or mid-oceanic rift zones, subduction zones, etc. If AI can learn to understand tectonics, and its hierarchies, and how those all interact and work, as well as recognize its features, WITHOUT previous specific training in new examples it hasn’t seen, then General AI is upon us. My work has shown some of this water. But it’s likely there are many more wellsprings of our humanity’s creativity, understanding, and much else.
 .
& there it is. The mind/brain interface of the cortex, which in the CC’s of Mountcastle, a simple, single, repeating process creates the outputs of the mind, including languages, sensations, creativities, the many, multiplicit functions of consciousness, as well as the moral conscience. The latter of which can be imaged at this time.
 .
.
Thus language is easy to generate, from the simple repeating “dada, mama” to the complex. And math as well. Take the linear, number line of counting, 1 + 1, 2 +1,. etc. We can count up and then down. From 2 to 8 there are six counts and vice versa. From that we know there are 4 two’s in 8, and vice versa. By subtraction the same, and by division the same. The we get the exponential both base 10, natural and logarithmic methods.
.
And the hierarchies are again there, the 1’s place, the 10’s, the 100’s, the 1000’s, 100’s of 1000’s, millions and so forth. And the counting, 1st hierarchy; addition/subtractions, second hierarchy; 3rd hierarchy, multiplication and division; 4th, exponentials, etc.
.
For geometries and algebra, we see that when we compare the circumference to the diameter, we derive Pi, as a ratio, a proportion. We get constants, and speed in the same ways. Thus do we get algebra, which is essentially ratios and comparisons, too. And we get trigonometry which are the precise ratios of idealized right triangles by comparing their 2 sides, and angles, to derive the other side, Most all comparison processing, is it not?
 .
And yet it’s far, far deeper than that. When we value items against each other by barter, a bushel of grain is worth some silver, or some copper. Or we create money which measures values of items against a relatively stable, set constant called, for instance, a dollar or pound. Its costs and values, and each currency, each value can be compared to all others by “conversion factors”, or constants, derived by, you guessed it, comparison processing. And when we shop for the best items, for the best costs, we use both massive comparison processing as well as least energy to get the best for our bucks, too.
 .
Most all of our brain higher cortical outputs are comparison processes. Again as some AI experts have stated, “a single repeating principle in the brain which creates predictive control.”
 .
This is how predictive control is obtained:
 .
Comparison processing creates classifications, indices, and social classes among humans as well as the flocks, herds, schools, and so forth. “Like knows like” through universal recognitions created by comparison processing, that is thinking. IQ also becomes easy to define and measure, and not only in humans, either.
.
Communication becomes translation & lots easier, because of
.
Ich bin hier.
I am here.
Je suis ici.
Estoy ahi.
Sum hic.
 .
Most translation is comparison processing, tho context is also CP and is not easily recognizable to a computer. It cannot recognize as easily as we can and with high facility, that we talk differently to bosses, employees, lover, parents, and so forth. Thus context is comparison process, easily seen once we begin to apply CP.
 .
.
“It’s beautiful.” he said to her later in the day.
“It surely is.” she replied. Computers will have a hard time recognizing the sunset context here, let alone the others which are social.
.
& how to communicate with dolphins? What do we recognize in common with them? By the rule of commonality, fish, sharks, bubbles, colours, and so forth. Recently it’s been claimed dolphins have names for each other. because they observed that specific whistles often in a pod attracted the attentions of single members. & when those were played back, only the one whose “name” was broadcast showed interest. Trial and error, comparison process.
.
& when we go into space and meet other species space faring or not? How did our trading ancestors do it?
.
This is wood, this is water, this is meat, and what’s your name for those? Those events in existence which we have in common, those events in existence which create recognitions by continuing reinforcement because similar events repeat themselves. We show the aliens ice, liquid water, and water vapour. Give them our names for those, and at once we have 3 phases of matter and water, which is the commonest life giving element, & must be ubiquitous, as well. Commonest standards, commonest used, even for weight as the 1 cc. gram of water, too. and densities, yet another comparison of mass over volume? The rest flows easily from there. Universal understanding, at a stroke. Simple, easy, elegant, highly fruitful.
.
.
Have gone on way too long, but the model is highly applicable to most everything. Without limits. The universality of the CP and the LE models is notable. It can even, where Hawking’s “The Grand Design” lamented, we cannot integrate the classical models of thermodynamics, relativity and QM, while he missed biology, which also isn’t consistent with two of them, either. The commonalities of understanding can likely create a Unified model of most everything. Defragmenting the sciences, as well.
.
ER equals EPR. Some of your physics colleagues will see this relationship as part of unifying physics of relativity and entanglement, as this model predicts. There are many, many other bridging concepts which can be used, of which LE is key, too. Esp. in solving the complexities of Quantum wave equations. There are approaches possible to achieve even that. Well past renormalization, which is a specific app of a more general solution kind.
.
The implications for AI of where the hierarchies of our understanding come from, how to both create and read and extend those using creativity are thus almost at once apparent. The system can even model neurochemistry, using Dopamine and its ancient and central, 10+ receptor sites, which both create motion and Emotion (D1 and D2, largely). DA can be compared against most all the other neurochemicals such as serotonin, to create sleep/wake cycles, why we dream & even how to better treat migraine headaches, using complex systems thinking. Or how to make Viagra 50 mg. last about 3 days, where its normal duration is 6-8 hours. Then there’s Cialis.
.
Bacterial resistances to antibiotics, which are very easily overcome, as well, using this new paradigm & epistemology of comparison process and least energy, structure/function, and complex systems thinking. Thus we do more with lots less. The secret of growth of all kinds.
.
Hope you found this interesting. I can answer a LOT of questions, including how and why events go viral, fashions/fads & where humor comes from and how to create professional vs. amateur skills for improving education across the board, without limit. It’s behaviorism on super charge, largely extended, because the internal brain source of the classical & operant conditioning model has been found, too.
.
The facts that human think visually is well known. The above alignment of our brains to visual images is no accident and shows that we are visual creatures. In Sagan’s “Cosmos” he showed how Einstein was using “visual thinking” in order to create his relativity model. Einstein asked what it would be like, using a visual thought experiment, to be “riding on a photon”. Also used was the image of picturing a person in a gravitational field and then comparing that to a person in a rocket which was constantly accelerating. The person could not easily know the difference!  And these two visual and sensory insights were basic to creating relativity.
.
Thus, if there is to be TRUE AI, then it must be able to think visually as we humans can. It must be able to solve the problem of where to place an insect in the hierarchies of the beetles, for instance. And if presented with an unknown, to know where that critter must be placed in the established hierarchies of living species.
.
In addition, if it were to hear a language, it must be able to place that language into the hierarchies of the taxonomies of Slavic, Teutonic, romance, and Indo-european, languages, not to ignore the Eastern Asian language as well. It must also be able to create new categories from data, and make sense of that data, thus understanding the relationships of the categories in our hierarchies, upon demand. It must understand the IUPAC, and hnow to place, read and add new categories to that hierarchy as well. Thus, the HIerarchical Turing test, will, if AI can read, understand and creatively add to it, be a solid test for actual, real existing general AI.
.
These methods can answer many questions about AI, and how to get to the Promised Land of general AI. Half the problem of getting there is solved if we know WHERE we are going. And if some go by trial and error, in all its combinatorial complexity, compared to those of us who know WHERE to find our goals, that is we know better & more completely what we are trying to simulate, the win goes to the best model because it’s swiftest & most efficient.

Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

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

Cognitive Neuroscience and Behaviorism can now be significantly joined by using the models in the previous articles. Comparison processes, Least energy, Complex systems, and Comparison methods which exist without limit, can be combined in a more comprehension model of the higher cognitive functions. lastly, the Structure/function relationships which allow us to identify areas in brain which subsume the higher abstractive functions, such as language/math, thinking and reasoning; vision, and other senses, motion and skilled acts;, etc. Essentially, the many higher cognitive functions which create and make up when combined and integrated, our consciousnesses, i.e., how we structure and understand events around us and within us..

.
Comparison process is a universally applicable function, and virtually everything within and without the nervous systems can be compared and contrasted to other events as well. The CP creates the comparison methods, which were widely and well described by Dr. Paul J. Stark, dept. Chair, Statistics, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, and has been referenced numerous times before.
 .
 .
Dr. Stark writes of the “ubiquity” of the comparison method(s), which are available, and cut across most fields, making the CP consilient, and virtually universally applicable worldwide.
 .
 In addition, when we look at our adjectives, which are used to describe most all events, as well, we find the series “high, higher, highest, low lower lowest; cold colder coldest, hot, hotter hottest”, without limit, from the base forms, some, more, most. The first base form is that. The last the “-st” forms, universally used in English worldwide, is the superlative. And the middle form, the “-er” form? The Comparative. There it is again. Very likely all those 3 basic forms are comparison methods as well, with the first setting, then to the highest, or lowest and the rest being comparatively used, universally and applicable to most all descriptive uses. It’s bigger than a breadbox, or hotter than hell, or colder than a freezer, to give some idea of the widest ranges of these comparative terms within our language, called adjectives. Unlimited, as well. Comparison is ubiquitous, it’s universal in our languages, and most all have forms of these same meanings, as well. These are the comparison methods at work in our adjectives, which we use to describe, and measure as well.
 .
Have previous discussed how the comparison process (CP) is a kind of logic which does NOT use the negative. And have discussed how the negative arose as a specific, likely over extension of the exclusions seen. This insight into the negative as a near universal exclusive form Hofstadter shows how the incompleteness of Godel’s Proof arise from this inconsistency, of “This statement is false.” or “I am a liar”, among all the limitless permutations.
 .
In contrast, the CP is the original logic, and it’s a logic of exclusion, which is NOT like formal verbal logics and because of this is naturally self consistent. Exclusion is a highly limited form of the negative. And from this logic likely arises what has heretofore been called “inductive logic.” But it’s lots more than mere induction, too.
 .
The CP does a very great deal as it organizes information in many ways, as well. This was discussed in alphabetization of dictionaries, indices, maps, hierarchies, taxonomies, the IUPAC listing of all known compounds, and elements and their characteristics. & the periodic table of the elements. Also we see the family trees of genealogy, which naturally relates to the taxonomies of both life (Kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genera, species, and variants of species), and languages, a la the romance languages, the Slavic languages, the Teutonic, Semitic, as well as the overall hierarchy of the Indo-European languages, & those of Asia, as well. All massively CP of the similarities of words to each other, which finds those relationship/associations of words and organizes languages into a genetic order, as well.
 .
 It’s also the root and method of trial and error. CP does a VERY great deal with a little. Creating, writing our dictionaries, as well as reading them, all by trial and error.
 .
 .
Please peruse section 8.
 .
It’s also the origin of data, information and knowledge, and can be very, very easily shown to be the case by this simple, but easily expandable proof using measurement, which is a numerical form of description.  This discussed in the article:
 .
 .
By measuring, using the epistemology of Einstein’s relativity (relationships), we compare a relatively fixed, stable, useful and efficient scale, such as a meter stick. And compare all lengths against that numerical standard. The output is numerical data, and information. So every time we measure something we are creating new information, be it degrees (comparing to the boiling and freezing points of water in both Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales), or weights (against 1 cc. of water at STP, the gram). Or volumes (against a cc. of water). Or pi as the comparison of the lengths of the circumference and diameter. Or algebras as the ratios & proportions, viz. the Comparisons. Trigonometry compares the angles of the sides of the right triangle, as is a form of algebra as well. It’s endless in mathematics & measuring, endlessly useful and repeatable, as well. A comparison method of immense utility.
.
Many concepts and constants in nature are found this way, viz., Pi, the gravitational constant, density, which is gm./cc. ratios, and speeds/velocities, which are km./hour, or minute or second as the case may be. Each of them specific and repeatedly applicable evidences of the wide use of the CP operating in our cortices, producing our mathematics, as well.
 .
Now examine the verbal descriptions we use, as above with the quasi numericities of high, higher and highest, or short, shorter, and shortest Thus showing how verbal descriptions are converted, translated by comparison process into numericity of the scales arising from our senses, long/short, hot/cold, warm/cool, big/little, etc., without limit. There are 10K’s of these adjectival forms in English and they can be created at will without limit. And in each case of them, these trios are specific and unlimited evidence for the existence of the comparison process repeatedly and provably working without end (La Chanson Sans Fin) in our cortices.
 .
Observe how we describe colours, ROY G BIV, by COMPARING those universal standards of colour, against which we describe new events by comparison to our standards. & thus create new information/data. Each word, by clear, logical extension  can be seen & understood, as an efficient comparison standard, which when applied to each new event seen, can describe it relatively to those ideas/words which already exist. Description and measurement are two differing methods by which we describe, but both act, at their root, using comparison processes, arising from the cortical language centers.
 .
Ideas/words most often reinforce each other. The idea is connected intimately to the word, both spoken and now with writing, spelled. Ideas are thus grounded, and reinforced by words, both written & spoken. Ideas become more stable, more usable, more memorable, in these cases. Thus does description using words, act in its own way, as does numerical measuring, to describe events in our existence, both internally or externally. But verbal descriptions are the older system and far, far more flexible. & mathematics as Ulam stated, needs to be much more developed and advanced in order to describe what our words do easily, more flexibly and more universally.
 .
The cameos of how we think, a guy sitting in the sun. It was a cold day, breezy, so to stay warm, he found a place in the warming sun, out of the wind, and kept warm. The animals know the same, and use it intuitively, such as insects warming in the sun, the seals laying on the beach in sun to warm up from the cold water, & even Dimetrodon whose sail like back structures allowed it to warm up more quickly as ir ran blood thru the sail on is back, and thus warmed up more quickly, too. Thus showing how ubiqutous this is. Altho those animal use, but cannot express what they are doing as we can.
 .
So the chap thought about it, and this created creativity, by finding through trial and error, methods to warm up and stay warm, too. It’s universal in how we think, as well. CP shows us how to look inside of the brain and see how the mind orders itself and works.
 .
CP is also the source of how our memories are ordered. Hofstadter has a list of 100’s of words which he’s used erroneously, but which were VERY similar to each other, as evidence of his analogy model of brain processing. But at the root of the analogy, is the comparison process of the entire word cluster of Analogy, metaphor, story, parable, fable, aphorism, koan, etc. All fundamentally comparison process methods, differing modestly, but like the moral laws, the civil/legal laws, the universal scientific laws, and the rules and regs organizing and governing all human groups from the family units up to the means of running schools, churches, corporations and indeed all forms of human groups and associates. The same, massive CP among rules and regs and how we, and events in the universe, behave, and are to behave. From whence comes the moral Conscience as well. All forms all CP methods with the same roots.
 .
At the roots of mnemonics, most all of them are the comparison processes. The word associations, the tricks of memory, because most all words are, as Hofstadter intuitively saw, are organized by what he missed, the comparison process. Universal, ubiquitous, as Dr. Sharp showed, consilient, La Chanson Sans Fin.
.
But how are our verbal memories organized? Clearly not by logic, nor by numbers, but by Sounds. For instance, when we want to use the form, “word”: we can mistakenly use world, or work, as all 3 start the same way. Thus most all words are stored in this hierarchical way, with wor- being a starting form, then we check by T&E for the k, or -ld, or d which we need to find. Because we are searching by T&E we will occ. make a mistake, but as the words are very closely organized, and resemble each other greatly, the information in each allows us to find the right one. Again, information in our “mistakes”, which are not totally wrong. Thus most all words are stored by such sound alike hierarchies, at least at first.
.
As we grow older we begin to attach many new relationships and information to each word. As these categories become more complete, reasoning begins to occur about age 12 or so. But take Ohio, for instance. At first it’s simply the 3 syllables, with the 2nd accented. The we learn there are counties there, geographical regions, and that Ohio borders on Michigan to the N, Indiana to the W, PA to the East and Kentucky to the south, on the Ohio River, and W. Virginian to the SE. Then we learn the cities and major counties, the capital, and that it’s on Lake Erie, one of the whole collection of
Great Lakes, too. So when we think of Ohio, all of these connections are available for our thinking. And just as we select what we want to find the words stored by sounds since childhood, so do we create hierarchical chains of memory tracing tying all of these facts together around, Ohio.
 .
Another example outside of the two ways in which that chap stayed warm, and how he created solutions of staying out of the wind and in the warming sun, synergistically operating. & both which minimize by comparison of outcomes, i.e., trial and error, comes “A mother’s wisdom, the putting together, making connections, the roots of our creativities in most all fields, as well.
.
IN addition, there is yet another basic way of using this information. Most of us have had that time when we could not recall a name or word, but we had something close to it, such as when looking for a name we think of Lewis. as stated before, there is information in our mistakes, which is the beauty and value of the CP. Even our mistakes have the information within them to correct those. So we do a permutation search, knowing we are close to the right name, but not on the money. and we see the name Bruce, and it complete it. We were looking for Willis, and we see thus how close it was to Lewis. Just switch the first 3 letters around and there is the answer. There are endless kinds of these queries we can use to find the words/names we want. Just by being aware of it, is often enough to eventually by T&E finding the right combo to lead us to the word searched for.
.
Clearly, because words are organized by CP this is how both mnemonic systems work and how we store as well as find the words we seek, tho in a very facilitated way, which of course, is called verbal fluency in language.
 .
Now combine the comparison processes  and CP methods with least energy, which is a comparison process as well. All actions take energy. We can compare the energy cost of each action against those similar, and find the one which is least energy. That’s the winner. This is a creativity aspect as well, and as stated before, any systems which can be translated to thermodynamic methods ARE very likely to be real. Least energy methods are real, as the source of tgrial and error outcomes of advantage. As the sources of figuring out good solutions to problems, that is decision making. As we compare outcomes, a la Dr. Sharp, we learn which is most effective, and which has least side effects. & which has the least energy costs, least money cost, least wastage of materials, and least time to perform. Least energy, least energy, least energy. Simplify, simplify, simplify outcomes of Henry David Thoreau. As well as  Occam’s Razor, which states, that the model which explains the most, with the least is the most likely to be right. Least energy again. Creativity again. Do you see? CP, CP, CP, LE, LE, LE, outcomes compared to each other for maximizing benefit with minimal costs.
 .
This article shows how this creates growth from LE processes:
 .
 .
Having established the fundamental basics of mental processing of information and creation of same, it’s necessary to look at behaviorism and meld this with the cognitive neurosciences. Essentially, behaviorism seeks to explain human actions based upon stimulus/response, the comparison process form very similar to cause/effect, input/output, structure/function, etc., being most all CP forms.
 .
And this is an extension of behaviorism into the complex system, structure/function model of CP and least energy. In our environment there exist endless numbers of repeating stabilities. Days, hours, sunrises/sunset, trees, grasses, stars and constellations. All fo this are easily and readily seen, recognized and known again and again without limited. The repetitions of events in our existences, the stabilities.
 .
 .
And how this related to the reinforcement and learnings of behaviorisms is at once very, very clear. Each time we see the same, similar and repeating event, it’s reinforced. We see each stability/event enough times, our long term memory stores it by this constant reinforcement of being sense, again. Be it a word/idea, a kind of bird, a building, a morning/evening star, and so forth. The repetitions of events reinforces those events into our LTM, and this happens naturally and spontaneously. & the more we see any event the faster it’s going to be stored, is not? And is this not learning?  Repetitions of events promote reinforcements of Long Term Memories.
 .
Now consider these, the neurophysiology of dopamine, the growth and spread of humor and memes, the going viral on the internet, or the creation of fads and fashion. All spread and are created by the same, repeating means. The dopamine boost, as has been described before an an internal reinforcing process driven by dopamine (DA). IN fact, DA will preferentially facilitate laying down of LTM, as well. For instance, we most all of us easily recall the first time we had sex with another. We recall the momentous events in our lives, those wedding, that first child born to us, the dreadful accidents and injuries we had. In each case, there was a huge DA boost, in cases of injuries the flight or fight response, created by release fo DA, adrenalin(DA originated, metabolically), cortisone, anandamide, etc. This forced us to lay down deeply ingraining information into our LTM. DA and catecholamines facilitate us to recall those events. And as such, DA also creates growth, in the same was a the Growth and development article above shows.
 .
So not only does Least Energy create growth in brains, with fads, fashion, and the spread of humorous stories, memes, and going viral on the Net, but it Synergistically acts with DA to create growth of our ideas, & actions, as well. These are the two brain systems both in competition with each other, but capable of working together. The physical and the emotional (DA drive). DA creates both the Motion and Emotion in our bodies and brains. & when combined with LE processes can substantially promote growth of both sorts in humans, as well. & it applies by easy extension to the animals and plants, and even the creativity of the DNA itself. Because the laying down of LTM is protein synthesis driven and that means DNA activation by DA without question via messenger RNA to create the physical LTM, mediated by neuronal synapses, rather permanent Long Term Memories.
 .
These internal events have been missed. The external reinforcements of Pavlovian classical conditioning as well as the behavorist discovery of operant conditioning, BOTH operate using LE as well and DA boost. The external conditions effects, are in fact, very likely reinforced and made to work by the DA boost, acting as the final common pathways in learning of most all kinds. The person who is motivated to learn. The pleasures of Philosophy, as Aristotle states, are dopamine boosted. The mother who gives her child sweets while he’s learning so he will be reinforced to learn and LOVE learning, again, internal DA boosting. Thus the DA boost is the internalizing  event of the exterior, visible conditioning events. and not only simplifies our understanding of behavioral reinforcement, but this comparison process explains behaviorism, as well. Providing a cognitive, neuroscientific process which underlies behaviorism and thus in a deliciously efficient, elegant, and simple way, shows how learning occurs.
 .
The “Eureka” moment of Archimedes. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. The mountaintop experiences, and discoveries, all driven simply, easily understood both by LE in tandem with the highly reinforcing and remembering, dopamine boost euphorias.
 .
Curiosity is likely the same. I recall when my son brought in a lizard in a bottle. and he was very excited. “Daddy, daddy, look what “I” found!” And it passed into his LTM because it was exciting to him, via DA boost. Cognitive activation methods in teaching in school are of the same kind, easily explained by DA boosting of the teaching methods. The “AHA”, again, you see?
 .
And this is how both cognitive neuroscience AND behaviorist methods can be brought together in a fruitful melding of ideas, Now systems are joined together by the deep connectivity of the comparison process acting within brain/mind.
 .
And how in “Towards Universal Understanding” the thermodynamics, relativity and QM, when combined with  complex systems thinking, CP and it’s methods, LE, and structure/function relationships can create, potentially, Universal models, which by using the universally applicably Comparison processes and methods, plus Least Energy (universally applicable, too), can unite most all knowledge, and explain most all which is within &  without  our brains/bodies and the universe of events in existence.
 .
 .
Universal models. The logic of the comparison process.