Understanding Psychology With S/F Methods

Understanding the Brain;  AKA Using S/F Methods to Create Beyond the Limits of Psych, Maths & Qualia:
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.
Essentially, this problem of psychology was created deliberately by behaviorism, which refused to look into the Black Box, the human brain, recognizing that was a tough problem, nearly intractable at the time. & Repeatedly stated by both BF Skinner and Watson. Father  Freud, who created those fields, largely and the psychiatrists have done much the same. So they mostly treated the outward appearances and functions of visible behaviors, organized them esp. in the extensively detailed DSM series, and ignored most of the other half of what was going on. The Structure which CREATED and creates the multiplicit, complex system brain functions, the totality of information processing, emotional systems, and their complex behaviors, in part.
.
That simplification took them a ways, but just. Now let’s look at what’s much more likely going on from a comparison process standpoint. We have in the clinical neurosciences the clinico-pathological correlations which are very, very deep, and show us a good deal of what’s going on structurally in the brain. Sometimes specifically and sometimes in a general way. Before CT & MRI brain scans, that was a very laborious process of making slides after preserving and formalinizing the brain (taking weeks).Then looking at the gross pathology by sections (often missing a lot of tiny lesions), then staining said often thin slices, & lastly microscopically examining them in detail. But this is what was found, grossly. When we find problems with speech and word processing we look in the well known speech centers, which about 97% of the time are in the left hemisphere, specifically the Wernicke’s post temporal, sup. temporal area & a bit forward, from there, too.
.
Those areas are Hardwired but only incompletely. Once they start to work about age 8-9 months when language starts being generated & processed, and the functions of the ideas are turned into words, and thus more stabilized, we get speech. This occurs by protein synthesis observed with puromycin studies, which create dendritic proliferation & synaptic lay downs. Those pathways are the well known memory tracings, as well as motor tracings of Dr. Wilder Penfield’s work in the 1950’s at McGill Uni, Montreal. These cortical columns then recruit locally to expand motor programs and memory, & then widely connect, as well. The latter mostly organized and set up by about age 12-14 when the logical reasoning becomes possible near puberty. This is Piaget’s well observed and confirmed logical development stage of personality.
.
& so created are Wernicke’s to Broca’s areas & the connections as well as other sites in the brain which for descriptive purposes can access the speech centers, to describe & create information about what’s going on internal and externally, too.
.
Thus, the clinicopath is more succinctly, more widely applicable & NOW known as the structure/function relationships of brain. When a problem is seen in brain output, or functions, we know there are parts of the brain which do that. And when we we see structural damage in many parts of the brain, visual, sensory, motor, speech, facial recognitions and so forth, we know what functions are highly likely to be abnormal, or even absent. These are the structure/function relationships which used to take a lot of time in the path department to find, which are Now very much easier to create information about, identify & confirm with a fast CT brain scan, or even better, an MRI of brain. Often in a very few minutes compared to weeks. These two scanning methods have resulted in a very great increase in our S/F relationships about how brain works. But the fMRI is even better. Those set off the current S/F revolution.
.
Further, S/F relations are very, very widely used in most all fields. Chemistry, esp. organic, biochem, neurophysiology and the functions of the cells are thus understandable, by these means. Kekule’s famous dream of how he found the structure of the benzene molecule with so lovely a correlation that is, compares with its functions, as a carbon bonded hexagonal ring, & so forth. We have the structural relations of the enzymes, of the mitochondria & the very basic functions of the chromosomes, the specific genes on each chromosomes, the DNA, polymerases; the endoplasmic reticula, the tubules, the nucleus of the cell & so forth. Even the nerves and muscles have S/F relationships which describe, delimit and largely give us an understanding of “how brain events” work.
.
In addition the fields of comparative anatomy, comparative linguistics, comparative ethologies, comparative theology, etc.; and the whole relationships of the vast tree of life are most all comparison process driven & created. These hierarchical arrangements of organized vast amounts of knowledge have already been treated. & This is no accident, because that’s what the cortical columns largely do in processing higher functions of brain. How info is carried by the sensory nerves and transmitted by the 90-95% white matter of the brain which is axonal, is yet another kind of information, which at this time remains a coding enigma, mostly.
.
And if we look at it, this is the problem with psychologies and psychiatry. Where are the S/F relationships for all of those behaviors? For brain functions of other types we have huge amounts of details. Yet, in psych We don’t have many of those. We have those detailed functions & diagnostic criteria, but very little idea where most of them come from and how those arise from the brain. What specifically in brain structures generates those functions? That’s the problem with behaviorism. It ignored the S/F relationships so necessary to a more complete understanding of brain outputs. The same with psych, And the same with the qualia. What do those correlate with? IOW, what do we compare those with? And we have very little, and thus very little understanding in those fields.
.
A similar problem is seen with the completion of the human genome. We have all of those 20K some genes, but not very much information about what they all actually do!! The structure is there, but how they interact with the other genes, gene products and the 1000’s of internal and external chemicals and what they do, that is the function half, is most often NOT there! & what of epigenetics, which can markedly modify gene expression? & to the discomfiture of the pharmacologists who thought the genetic information would give them a vast largesse of 1000’s of gene targets to work on, they find they must wait for most of that unknown functional information.  Which is proceeding by brute force of trial & error testing, sorting and trying to figure it out.  Proteonomics has helped, but simply complicated the sorting, and hardly solving the problems of regulatory genes, either. It’s still brute force T&E.
.
The same conundrum nearly exactly, is being created by the short sighted people who want to create the Connectome of the Brain. Fine. Do all that. But what do all of those masses of pathways do? What are their connections, their functions, their work and processing? Again, half the answers, and the not so important half either, because the Functions are the important outputs, not the detailed incomprehensible connections, utterly incomprehensible because of the billion billions of digits of possibilities from the 10’s of billions of interacting nerves, glia and brain modules. Which structure/pathways are important? We don’t know. So the cart once again finds itself in front of the horse. So Mother Nature once again skips aside, & once again eludes our understanding.
.
We have some basic pharmacology of the psycho-active meds, but not specifically HOW most all those are processed to emotional states. Those are S/F relationships, too, be it specifically and importantly noted. The structure of the molecules is often, but not completely related specifically to their functions, as well, to show ever more so, how important, and nearly universal are the S/F relationship and processors.
.
In the coming “Towards a Complex Systems Pharmacology”, those problems will be more exactly addressed to understand how and what’s going on.
.
That’s the problem. When we want to see recognition we look for evoked potentials in the brain. The brain compares the incoming sensory information with the LTM, largely visual, as that’s how the brain is organized, and it then decides if it knows or likely knows, that is, Re-cognizes what it’s detecting largely visually. Which handles a vastly greater amount of information than do the other senses, of which there are scores of them, not just the 5 the ancients so mistakenly believed.
.
So, we have this problem in psych. There is very little in brain structure which correlates very exactly with the psychological vocabulary, ideas & concepts used with real, brain functioning. It’s  why the field is so backwards, limited. & dreadfully incomplete.
.
However, with the newer fMRI we are getting better insights, and when we add the evoked potentials, auditory, visual, sensory, & cortical EP’s we get lots more information.
.
And when we do the baseline MRI scan, which we know is normal state, we Compare, massively that with the new MRI of each patient and then by these massive comparisons, “read” every image, to see if it’s normal, or not. By massive, developed methods/skills of “reading’ images, in most every case, comparison processing against the fixed, relatively stable descriptive, relativistic standards of normalcy.
.
CF: How Physicians Create New Information.
.
.
So we compare the baseline fMRI, against the changes in brain function to be studied, and those changes light up in the brain by contrast & in comparison. Thus we have created new information by CP, and have found a significant S/F relationship(s). That’s the beauty of the MRI method. When we combine/compare MEG CEP’s with the same fMRI, we see even more. and we know about where those CEP’s are going to arise by this very same comparison,  S/F  processing of information. Thus Information is created by the physicians in this way.
.
See article: The Praxis
.
.
Then we organize and process that info into our understanding. That’s basically how it’s done.
.
Now the qualia do NOT correlate, nor compare with ANY known sites in brain, either. Where does colour come from? We know it’s a construct of  the brain.
.
.
Where does numbness and tingling come from? We don’t know. Pain and Freud’s pleasure are from where? Then they call this the “hard problem” because they can’t figure out to use CP and S/F relationships where we compare structure to function & function to structure for additional information. Input/Output, and then again, and again. & we compare fMRI to CEP for ever more information, too. CP, CP, CP. S/F S/F S/F.
.
And that’s exactly how simple it is. But we have to do the work to sort thru the possibilities to find good, but rarely complete answers, plural, by trial & error, to find what’s going on in this rather largely complicated brain. It is as Gazzaniga so well states, brain is a “Modular complex system”. So are the cells and their organelles, the mitochondria, etc. So we have a virtually universally processing method, S/F, to find out more and more, too. And that’s what’s going on and how to problem solve, too.
.
A Neuroscience of Problem Solving, where the not polynomial descriptions become the linear, polynomial maths. That’s how it works, very likely.
.
& that shows how we take psych, psychiatry, neurochemicals, and neurophysiology to an understanding of brain.
.
Moreover and more deeply, we compare pain meds against the “morphine sulfate standard” of reports of good pain relief, compared to dosages in milligrams & duration of relief. Thus we have created a good standard about how much meperidine, AAP, codeine, tramadol and others are needed for pain control. & we can tell how well, relatively, by comparison, new pain meds work, too. The MS standard becomes the efficient, stable, useful standard to judge the pain relief powers of most the other pain meds, naturally occurring endorphins, and synthetic analgesics, of all kinds, too. It’s another yet again, Einsteinian standard to use. It’s relativity in Pharma.
.
Thus in the same way we use another comparison process using the most important and ancient  neurochemical, dopamine (DA) ,AND all its some 20 receptor sites, which by comparison as a stimulant, to the most ancient circadian rhythm, largely serotonin/DA balance, to figure out serotonin. By this larger, comparison process of what DA does compared to what the sedative, 5HT does. & then extend that model’s findings both to the rest of the neurochemicals, norepinephrine, adrenalin, GABA, neurokinins (for pain understanding) & so forth.
.
&  the article,
.
.
Using those relatively efficient verbal descriptions, which are limited and created by the epistemology of comparisons processes, that is relativity, we learn, more and more. Information is being created by comparison processing, as it most always is and does.
.
Now, how do we mathematize these?  Well, we understand the structure/function of math. It arises out of the Left post. superior aspects of the Left temporal lobe and related areas just above it, and extends forwards connecting to Broca’s area, too. Math interdigitates with that speech area. What damages that speech, damages math, as well. This is well worked out, already.  S/F relationships most all.
.
But please note this. We can speak & teach nearly all of math with ideas & words, but we cannot speak very much of words with math. Mathematize the semantics of “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.” Can’t do that with math. Because math is derived. & that’s how information is created, primarily by the sensory apparatus & sensory cortex. It’s comparison process all the way, against a relatively set, stable & efficient, least energy systems.
.
 Also the motor cortex sits right next to the sensory cortex for high efficiency (TD) & does much the same with closely rleating the anatomies of motr/sensory sites in the body. Those use the extension/flexion limits as the standards for motion, the abduction/adduction, etc., limits, all over the body, to comprehend, memorize via LTM and control movements, too.These summations of muscle movements details how those limits are memorized by the sensory system, to create learned muscle movements which we call the skills.The standard are how far the muscles and body parts can be moved in many directions & against those limits & standards, the entire muscle/sensory cortex is standardized.  That is simply kinesiology, is it not? So the fundamental insight into what creates that science, has a deeper application, therefor. Standards of the limits and kinds of movements of muscles create the basic motor programs of motion.  It creates the many set points of muscle movements which make skilled movements possible, and learnable.
.
That’s how it’s done. Ideas/words, descriptions come first & THEN we mathematize it. Which explains neatly, and confirmably what Newton did, what Einstein did with Minkowski, and we do every day when we convert words into math forms. Again, how we linearize temperatures compared to the water standard scale of freezing  (0 deg.) & boiling, 100 deg. C. How we measure length by hands, feet, & stepped off distances, & so forth. How we create color scales by comparing to the rainbow, ROY G BIV, from the refraction of light at sunrise and sunset, and the green leaves, the brown trees and other organics. This color is then combined with the black or white, lots of photons being white & black, almost no detectable photons. & the unlimited shades of the grays in between. There arises the hierarchical palette of the colors.
.
CF: The Structure of our Color Vision, comparing our visual color system to the EM scale of light frequencies.
.
.
This is how it’s done. the Moh scale of comparing to commonly found, thus efficiently found & used minerals, talc, limestone,, etc. to quartz, corundum (sapphire) and finally diamond for determining, measuring hardness. That creates the information of relative hardness efficiently. Then the GPa system came along which mathematized that further, and provided More information by creating a scale of the hardness data. by comparison processes, again.The creativity of mathematics, found by comparing a method to the senses of hardnesses. Sensory system becomes a workable system, and then is fully mathematized. That’s creativity in action, and the processes of T&E which create it by comparison processing of the sorting outcomes.
.
Those processes & events are all that simple. So in order to comprehend psych better, we MUST create comparison process scales & standards based upon structural events in the brain.THAT will create the correlations, the comparisons, the corresponding information. & thus more understanding of the emotional & personality functions & their disorders.
.
As Feynman stated, if I can’t generate an understanding, that is process according to some set, relatively efficient standard, I can’t understand anything. Generation to him meant processing information to us, using Einsteinian stable, efficient (least energy, TD) processes. & that’s how it’s done. That’s how to create progress in psych. Find the brain correlations for the emotions and feelings, learn how to first efficiently describe them and then mathematize the lot!!!
.
& how do we do that? We create a simple formal comparison logic of relationships, how specific processes show us the connections, the relationships, the associations between two events. This is Einstein’s “Physics  & Reality”. How we understand is by finding relationships by comparison processing standards, among events.
.
That generating creates the information and data which create the knowledge once its organized to types by comparison, creating the categories of Aristosteles, the foudnations of the hierarchies of our understanding, very simply.
So we create an expression: A double tilde ~~, “r” to B. & that is, A is Related to B. & what is the process going on there? Is it height, temp, is it change over time, is it velocity, density, volume, or weight? So we use the proper math in each case.
.
Is it higher or lower, or highest. Is it harder, or softer. is it taller, or longer? Does it take x seconds of time or hours, more time or less? Thus we linearize it to become mathematics, by the TYPES of processes, which have already been mathematized; and thus does the NP become P by adding information. And there that is, quite simply, & generally.
.
.
Ulam stated that in order to model events of complex systems, math must greatly advance. And THIS is a beginning way to do it. Within each hierarchic level of our understanding math can operate. But when we change the levels, the rules change. Those are the scale changes in physics. & so we use different descriptive methods to create, navigate and emplace the members of each scale, hierarchy/ Thus maths must change to acknowledge those differing processes at each hierarchy. And that’s how it’s done, simply.
.
 QM uses probability. Weather forecasting uses probability, scientific studies use a 95% probability of likelihoods, and we cast dice & to decide which actions to use by playing the odds, that is, the probability which we use to describe, generally, complex systems, which is most of everything there is.
.
A r B, & we define the processor, use the proper math within that processing method, and we have it, a general method to mathematize events. Or if needed, to create, as did Newton and Einstein/Minkowsky, the calculus, or the 4-D space/time, to more precisely measure what’s going on. Or as did Schrodinger, the Hamiltonian operators, that is logics/processors which created the QM wave equations.
.
Or again  as did Archimedes to create the comparison process, ratio of mass/volume, AKA density to handle that problem. Or Pi, the ratio of circumference, that is comparison of circumference to the diameter. But we note that we don’t use diameter over circumference, which is a tough fraction to use, but  but that C/D so as to have at least 3 and a fraction instead.
.
That’s how complex systems are mathematized, that’s how NP > P. That’s the basis of creativity visual, using Whiteheadian process thinking. It creates the S-curves of Einstein’s universe of light speed, at the top velocity end, exponential; to ambient temp of brownian movement; to the extreme low energy asymptote, again an exponential barrier, of the Bose Einstein maths. & we live within those,  the highest velocity of particles, light speed, or CEE, versus Zero K, neither of which are reachable & are exponential Wells of particles, fermion limits. Those are S-curves within which we must dwell.
.
Now, mathematize the complex system model of plate tectonics, next. Grin.
.
This is the system and where to go with it.
.
“Any society, which cannot break out of its current abstractions (that is, to grow), after a period of limited growth (the exponential aspect of the S-curve), is doomed to stagnate.” The top of the S-curve asymptote, of capabilities of the methods, which limit growth due to the things a method cannot do, either. Growth coming from TD process of least energy advantages, which create those same growths. Thus we taken the words and mathematize those to the cubic S-curves, noting the high similarity between Whitehead’s description and the maths of the S-curves. That’s how it’s done.
.
Stabilities of events within this universe. which are repeating. And stable because they are least energy. Thus by sorting we find the Lyapunov numbers which correspond to those, a la the redoubtable Dr. Friston, who found the math to describe the verbal events, and give us the fine math advantage of precision, & more information which descriptions verbal, tho efficient but alone cannot give us. Thus the advantages AND limits to maths.
.
.
That’s how it’s understood, organized, & developed. CP, LE, complex systems, and S/F which show us the complex system characteristics, and then the unlimited methods which we can develop to describe our universe of nearly unlimited complex systems.
.
Simple, elegant, highly fruitful & the essence of unlimited creativity, the wellsprings of human creativity, itself. Comparison process of the cortices driving the least energy outcomes of modeling events in existence.


Advertisements

A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

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

The basic understanding of how mind/brain higher, cortical functions work is lies in understanding the nearly universal basic processing our brains do when interacting with events in existence, which clearly, empirically are outside of us and which we can observe using our sensory systems. Exactly how this importation and learning of information from events cannot be completely ever understood because of the neurological complexities. However, the means exist built into our brains to understand a good bit of it. & that of the analogous nervous systems of the other animals, even plants as well, which mostly work and behave in the same ways as do we.

.
Essentially, repeating events in existence are real, and outside of us. Those repeating events then by these very reinforcements, delimited by behaviorism, but NOT completely, create the long term memories. Those repeating processors in the cortex essentially model the repeating events in existence and create information by  comparing those events to LTM.  Fundamentally, the repeating cortical column processings model the repeating events in existence. Such as seasons, days, nights, persons, faces, places, and many other events without limits. And the processes & characteristics, alsto repeating, which accompany those events.
.
.
Understand that Long Term Memory IS, provably, a least energy, thermodynamic event, and thus is real and exists, too, not just in an abstract sense, but has real correlates in the dendritic processes and the laying down of protein creating the synaptic connections, which lie at the root of the grid field system of memories. That is, it’s a structure/function relationship (S/F) of our cortices. & can be detected by the methods of Wilder Penfield, by fMRI, and by cortical evoked potentials (P300’s) when the recognition processes in the cortical columns are working, activated. AKA the theta activity of the cortex. “Now relax, don’t think.” says the EEG tech. And Theta goes away, replaced by the background activity, synchronized with the visual cortex, alpha waves.
.
Our higher processing functions in the cortical columns use Pattern Recognition, as the majority rule to create the methods, approaches, skill sets, techniques, ways of doing things, the whole panolpies of the rich synonymic elements and members of the methods & skills, of the categories of Aristoteles.  Which of course reflect the complex nature of such events, as well, and are best described by such single scales and levels of the hierarchies.
.
First, we see a repeating pattern of events, and because it’s repeating it’s also stable, in a thermodynamic sense. Then it’s detected again and again, and becomes reinforced naturally into part of the working, long term memory. Then we use those repeating events, those existing, empirical observations to create methods around which we build our skill sets of daily living.
.
Exactly how this is done is seen in “A Mother’s Wisdom”, where a series of repeating events  utilizes, in a very much least energy way, to create a way to efficiently glide through most of the traffic lights exactly right, when riding, driving, or walking. & it’s a universal rule in such cases, too.
.
.
And that’s the general rule as to how most ALL of our techniques and technologies are created by our minds, by massive comparison processing in least energy rules & forms. This general rule can be seen operating in most all the other mammals, adjusted for their sensory and processing systems. In Birds, reptiles, amphibians, arthropods and insects and fishes, as well. This creates a nearly Universal understanding of how even our DNA systems, immune systems, and much else, create what they do; as well as the huge vastnesses of metabolism, of virtually all of the plants, animals, microbes, the entire, greatly incomplete, tree of life of millions of species.
.
This is what creates the pattern recognitions, and the means to predictive control, model and live, empirically, within events in our vastly beyond our understanding, universe.
.
.
How recognitions are created by the LTM being compared to the richness of events, details in existence. A simplification, but still allowing such complex events to be recognized without limits, in all their richness. It’s how we can see a part of a face and know who it is. How we can be bent over a sink and recognize a friend who’s just walked up, without even looking at his face, our recognitions skills of the rich details of individuals can be so well developed, too.
.
This basic comparison process information is then processed by similarities of those events in existence to each other, by comparing LTM’s against each other. Thus we see, recognize and detect those repeating events. Then our brains automatically begin to organize them according to NOT exact equalities, nor identities, but to the richer similarities among events, such as birds, person’s faces and characteristics, trees, buildings, the stars and arrangements of stars, for example. This process of organizing according to similarities is automatic, & built in. We do it subconsciously and because it’s facilitated and habituated, we are not even aware of it ongoing. We do a VERT great deal of our organized, mental processing work, automatically, subconsciously. This is working when Most all of us try much of the time to make sense of events around us, often mistakenly. Over time this cortical system efficiently creates organized systems of knowledge, which we call hierarchies of understanding in their most modern and developed forms. And they are everywhere within us and outside of us, too.
.
& the internally created mental abstractions & hierarchies are very much as unlimited as can be, and differ in most all persons according to their rich sensory, largely visual systems & experiences. Not even the ID twins have the same memories and experiences, altho are often similar. These lead us to the categories of Aritosteles, but in a new way. We see the members of those groups as the  highly similar variations on the same themes, La Chanson Sans Fin. & this grouping, collection is highly efficient, as well. The synonyms are in fact yet another part of these rich collections of organized information. The analogy, the metaphor, allegory, simile, anecdote, story, fable, parable, koan, the entire mythos of explanatory & ancient relationships, and so on.
.
And we do these according to landmarks, conventions  and standards whose Einsteinian relativity standards and limits are the case.
.
But the synonyms are incomplete & but part of the hierarchical nature of nature, itself, which will be addressed, shortly. Each synonym gives us some of the many aspects of those elements of the categories, but not all, by any means. And it’s incomplete as well. The stories, models, theories we tell are essentially NOT complete either, but begin to richly allow us to teach, explain, and understand the multiplicities of the hierarchies of our knowledge and understanding. These comparison processes allow us to navigate the hierarchies, as well as create, add to, subtract and often extend, them, too.
.
In order to understand this hierarchical structure better, those have been stated in their many types, and wide variations. For instance the alphabetical hierarchies of the dictionaries, telephone books & city directories, our Bibles, Korans, etc, and the richer hierarchies of the living systems of plants and animals, microbes and unicellular species, as well as the virions are the case. & every entry, each part of the hierarchies are created by massive comparison processings in our cortices, of how each level is related to the next, of Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and their variations.
.
The family trees and groups are yet further evidences of those. The entire IUPAC hierarchy and indices of those (as are all indices) are 34 millions of examples of the vast numbers of known chemical compounds, as well. More confirming evidences of comparison processings.
.
But it’s even deeper than this. The Scales of physics, which are marked by changes in how events are understood, are yet the same kinds of hierarchical organization. The most common, the reductionist method starts out as proton, electron and neutron, and then becomes the next higher level, the atoms, the elements, and the isotopes. The entire Periodic Table of the Elements is yet another hierarchy of elements ordered by the similarities to others, the alkali metals, the halogens, the noble gases, the ferrous metals, the rare earths & even the platinum group, all organized by their repeating, confirmable relationships to each of these vertical & horizontal lines & columns, at least.
.
So the scale of our understanding of the next level, the molecules, then the organic molecules, then the biochemicals, and finally the cellular organizational and physiologies, are the next.
.
And in EVERY case the rules at each scale, or hierarchical level, can be very different from those beneath or above. And in the case of the cell model show the emergency of the higher qualities & characteristics of each level.
.
The point being, in the physical sciences, the same kind of hierarchies are being seen. As well as in the natural world. We see the branchings of the trees, and plants. from the trunk or stalk, to the smaller branches, then the sticks and twigs to the leaves which are hierarchically ordered but different, yet branchings still further. And when  we move down the trunk to the large, thick roots & these again divide into the smaller roots, finally ending up at the rootlets, too. But what is behind these near universal system, of the neurovascular bundles in the animals, of the nerves, the veins and arteries all travelling together, as they have been created, down the limbs? Then the arteries from their main trunks splitting apart into smaller and smaller segments, finally becoming capilllaries, and then becoming the larger venules. Once again enlarging into the trunk veins & with the arteries are all together. The similar nerve trunk of the spinal cord becomes the nerve roots, then the trunk nerves, which then in the arms, for example, become the  radial and ulnar arteries, and the median, as well. Shall we neglect the trachea, two main bronchi either? & the veins and arteries which do this branching again?
.
But why these complicated, hierarchical patterns? & it’s very, very simple. We have to look to the rivulets,and springs, which become the small creeks and then streams, and then the smaller rivers, and then the larger and larger rivers, until we get to the Mississippi and then its major tributaries. the Ohio and the Missouri,among many others.
.
All of this complexity!!!, but in fact, easy to understand. Water flows downhill following the least energy gravitational topography. The riverine systems are in fact, least energy topographies. & so are the neurovascular bundles, and the trees/stalk plants organizations as well. They are the most efficient ways of doing what they do, functionally. Organized by least energy forms.
.
The same kind of electric power system hierarchies, of the natural gas pipes, the water and sewer pipes systems are going from the small to the large and vice versa. Exactly the same, least energy topographies and organizations, hierarchical, as well. It’s not absolutely least energy (for there is NO absolutely efficient heat engine possible), but a very strong tendency to be metastable, least energy. That is not accidental. But indicates the their rich hierarchies, organized by least energy principles, as well. Going down hill in a gravity field is a least energy route, simply, and repeatedly seen, and confirmed without limits,too. The other hierarchies above are simply the same, Complex systems, least energy forms.
.
It’s that easy.  Simplify, simplify, simplify; efficiency, efficiency, efficiency (Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations); least energy, least energy, least energy rules.
.
Taking the category of understanding synonyms shows further, esp. in English, this richness of descriptive power of the hierarchies of the categories. Comprehending, apprehending, knowing, seeing, visualizing (as we are highly visual creature structurally and in fact),
.
Visual Brain Organization
.
.
— then the word phrases, clusters, which have been so often omitted and ignored in mental, real time, as in figuring out, making sense of, putting it together, connecting the dots, seeing how things work, and further almost unlimited word groups which ALSO are synonymic & richer than those single words, alone. & is a very great completing & extending method of recognition, too.
.
Thus we have groups of words which are lumped together. And the same is true, of our hierarchies of living things. Those mental structures are internal, artificial and a construct, but useful, because it’s efficient, exactly. The variations of each species, are seen as a category in those greater hierarchies. The species of each genus, the genera of each family, and up the hierarchies of our vast millions of species of leaves, of our tree of life of the animals, plants, microbes, and virions we go, for example. A place for everything and everything in its place. All navigated and created by massive comparison processes of external data into created information of very similar events which are grouped tougher, which is then organized further  by the same CP.
.
That’s largely what’s going on. The entire IUPAC of 34 millions of compounds is so organized with like joined with like, efficiently. The Periodic Chart of the elements of atoms and isotopes, is the same. The star charts also organize into arbitrary collections of stars, we call constellations, entirely arbitrarily by pareidolic patterns, but highly efficient ways of doing so. The family trees, which show the exacting relationships among the family groups and family members, by massive comparing of each to the other. The rich relationships of a single male, as a child, young man, father, grandfather, cousin, husband, and so forth, again shows this richly, organized categorizing, which creates, by similarities, the entire family tree. Which is essentially, an unlimited, diagrammatical form.
.
& the same is true of events in existence, which are naturally organized hierarchically. The tree with its trunk, which then above organizes itself into larger branches, smaller branches, the sticks, then twigs and in every leaf, the same rich hierarchies of Xylem and Phloem, analogous to our veins and arteries, of the leaves is seen as well. All abounding in their topographical complexities and richness. The variations without end. La Chanson Sans Fin writ large. Then down the trunk to the large roots, the smaller roots, and into the tiny rootlets which absorb water and nutrients, as well. Highly efficient, highly universal, mostly and thus empirically existing. And very, very real forms. Just like the riverine systems and their tributaries & deltas, exactly.
.
And in humans we have the neurovascular bundles as a good measure of the same kind of highly efficient hierarchies of organizations. and so then the animals & plants  as well. Right down to the tubules, structures within the complex cells, too. Universally, but not quite. The huge aorta splits down into the clavicular artery, which travels down the arm, becoming the various smaller branches and then into the radial & ulnar arteries, which further divide into the not Euclidean geometry of the arterioles, and then the capillaries; which then reverse the process. Tiny venules become the larger veins, and at last again join the clavicular artery & vein, and thence the superior vena cava into the heart origin.
.
& the spinal cord trunk becomes the nerve roots, which then further divide and become the radial, ulnar and other nerves, until they reach the fingertips in analogous patterns of the nerve endings. Then send up sensory information in the same way, combining once again into the spinal cord and onto and up to the brain, where the nerve impulse information is processed into the higher cortical functions of sensation, description and high level information.
.
All of it hierarchical, and real. &the final kicker, which shows the innately efficient, thermodynamic aspects of these hierarchies, the rivulets & springs, which become the creeks, and then the streams, and the little rivers & then the larger rivers. ALL topologically, least energy flowing down the gravitational gradients, in a rich geometry, very similar to the plants and animal’s hierarchies. & those existing within our brains, too.
.
Thus we have the major trunks of the Ohio and Missouri pouring into the Mighty Mississippi, flowing its “mile wide tide to the sea”. And then in the deltas, like in the tree roots, the great rivers of the Amazon, Nile, Congo & the Orinoco and the great Mekong all break down into the tributaries of their deltas, just like tree roots do.
.
Again, those are the rivers in all their rich multiplicities & panoplies of their gravitational, least energy hierarchically efficient organizations. Down the gravitational topologies of each, in its own ways.
.
Thus we KNOW that the hierarchies are very, very energy efficient, and that’s why they exist, too. Stabilities, repeating events, which we observe, describe, create LTM’s of and those pass into our organized bodies of knowledge, according to place, region, continent, ocean, hemisphere and so forth, yet more hierarchies of our understandings, based upon the N, S, W, E plan of a spherical globe. Mapping being efficient hierarchically, a 3 D structure of comprehensions. yet anther hierarchy created by comparisons, massively.
.
This is how it’s done. Efficient at every level, from the hierarchies of events in existence, including the planets, stars and the entire Hertzsprung/Russel diagram of the known stars, to the same of the galaxies, as well. From the tiny atoms, to the largest galactic clusters, all of it hierarchically, efficiently arranged and organized.
.
That is the grand design upon which we can create a unified, almost universal model.
.
But it’s deeper, far, far deeper, as well. Because we group the professionals in the same ways. The ethics, the rules they use in their work, the skills. & we can tell the differences among the professionals versus amateurs. And we use exactly the same hierarchic structures to do this as well. Why? Efficiency and thermodynamically rewarding. We gain energy savings and a profit every time we use them. And that creates growth and a build up of organization. We save a lot of time, and so forth, in all the complex system ways of the 2nd law of least energy, as well.
.
.
Exploring this further gives the whole thrust of our understanding of this new model, and its unlimited capabilities, as well.
.
Because HOW do we tell the difference between, by comparisons of professionals &  amateurs. & here comes the richness again, the endless panoplies & multiplicities of complex systems understanding. The professional has a series of methods, skills, ways of doing things, approaches and techniques to get things done. & each of those are very, very efficient compared to the amateur’s ways. & each professional has his own skill set of doing things as well. And each has their own rich, but very similar word skills & vocabularies to keep track of and use those methods, tools, devices and technologies, to create what they do. Process information and then events in existence create the professional, recognizable outcomes. Those being least cost, least time, best outcomes, best appearance, best life, and enduring, etc. The least energy rules.
.
& that’s the higher point here. It’s largely hierarchical. By the outputs of the legal truths, and methods, the literary methods, the performances of artists and athletes. Those are all optimized by the application of similar methods and skill sets of the professional in ANY field whatsoever!!!
.
And because every one of those methods, techniques or tools has it capabilities and its limits, as the professional knows his craft and best knows his tools, those are each capable of being observed, described, & measured in their own ways. And each can be studied, and improved without limit according to least energy rules, as enumerated above.
.
Therefore, the difference and similarities among the skills of each kind of professionals can be studied, and the delimited in exquisite details. & then studied & improved upon within least energy limits, too. More methods, more devices/tool based upon those rich Techniques/technologies, in fact. Without limit.
.
This method thus offers the ability to create a cultural expansion without limits in EVERY field. But we MUST do the work and that’s the whole point. There is a lot of work to do.
.
And as we delimit the hows and why of using those concepts and idea, those words, which create the methods and devices, we can learn what are best and most of which give the best ways of doing each professional tasks. & then improve them using Least energy criteria without limit
.
The students will then know who the best are, and the teachers will know as well. By their most fruitful outcomes. of the MethodS(plural) of Comparison by Dr. Paul B. Stark, Uni California, Berkeley.
.
& that’s how it’s done. Cultural, scientific, performances expansions in all basic fields without limits. & the teaching of same to those interested and qualified.
.
This is what the Basic Model of the higher brain functions herein can do, practically, workably and richly.
.
Much more to be written about, because nearly the entire universe comes under these nearly universal applications, but that’s a very basic model of how the brain works, learns, grows and develops, and creates the skills and technologies which run our world. & it applies to the plants and animals, and the rest of life, as well. No matter where life might be.
.
And it’s efficient and nearly universal, too.
.
On a final note which shows the power and stability of this model is this:
.
Upon those rocks of repeated events in existence, which are enduring &  appear to be very, very much the most stable we know of. Because Least energy rules and is everywhere observable for billions of light years & in all places and billions of years of times, We know, being the basis of the stars and galaxies which shine from 4 protons fusing the stable He4, that it’s real and eminently and endlessly confirmable  Being the very basis of the light and its emission lines, also stable, which create the Hubble observations of the very size and stabilities in our universe. That least energy rules.
.
The same is true of the structure/function relationships in brain, in molecules, and most all else, besides. A universal.The same for complex systems, comparison processing. And upon those enduring, stable events in existence we can build  far more unifying, stable, nearly universal models.
.
The very stability of events in the universe stabilized & continues to stabilize them; those methods, and thus supports them without limit. But not quite!!! There is NO perfect heat engine in TD.
.
We found our beliefs, behaviors and knowledge upon THOSE rocks of the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun, and much else besides. Because those are always there and stable. & so that stability is thus built into our concepts and models, as well. & we can be assured THOSE foundations on the rocks of events, will endure.

 

The Etymologies & Creativity

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
Many have been interested in etymologies, that is, the derivations and meanings and roots of words for quite some time. And how we figure out where those words and meanings came from. And the enormous potential for understanding & creativities latently lying within the fields
.
It’s a result of massive comparison of similar words. The same word comparisons we commonly and very widely use to figure out how each language is related to others. It also shows how vowels, consonants and words can change over time. It’s in short a sum total of how we compare words, massively to create the relationships among the languages, to create the hierarchies of those relationships; such as the romance languages from Latin, the Teutonic languages, such as French (Gaulic), German, English, Dutch, etc.; or the Ungaro-Altaic language groups (Magyar, Estonian, Suomi, Sami, etc), the Semitic languages of ancient Egyptian, ancient and modern Hebrew, Arabic, Ethiopian Amharic, and Aramaic, for instance.
.
All of those are found to be related, esp., but for the central Asian examples, and are Indo-European languages, to boot.
.
So the comparison processes are shown to be working without limit, as well because in most every case massive comparisons are being done cortically in the language centers of the brain to detect those similiarities and their relationships. And here are some of the interesting events found over the last 40 years.
.
The first real idea was that many words are very under-defined, and not very precise. in IT terms, they have less information content. But in fact this is an advantage, because it creates the hierarchies of our understanding, the levels of which are populated by the elements within the categories of Aristoteles, which create the hierarchies, as well.
.
For instance, “tree” is not very precise, and can refer to a very, very large number of 10K’s of species, both living and extinct, as well..By comparing each tree to those known we at once ascertain where they fit in: in the oaks, the conifers, the cypressacae, the hardwoods, the apple tree family ( that is, the roses  ), and so forth.
.
These relationships and associations of the trees are not only visual, but genetic as well. Thus the visual comparisons can translate to genetic relationships and details,too, being structure/function (S/F) relationships. So while the general category of tree, which can include hardwoods, flowering trees, the palms, even to stretch it, the tree ferns and the Calamites, Lepidodendrons, and Lepidophlois of the extinct tree families.
.
So the word tree allows this, by being not specific and not but generally defined. The more specific they are, the more IT info they contain, until we get down the specific variations of the species of trees, esp. those of the cultivated varieties, which can be vast, indeed, esp. with the apples.
.
Thus, we can take the apple, and see the apfel,and the apfalon (Avalon Isle) relationships. In French it’s Pomme and the Pomme de terre is the potato in English. & Kartoffel in German. But in Arabiya it’s Batatis, because there is NO “p” in Arabiya.
.
&  we find out first examples of how the B and P can be interchangeable, in some languages. Meaning when we find Boutros in Arabiya we are looking at the Greek Petros.
.
Taking this further, listening to Espagnol we hear the diphthong consonant, of the B/V when Havana is stated. It’s not the B OR the V, but a mix of the two. And this shows again how pronunciations and spelling and how those consonant changes can create new, but similar words.
.
The same is seen with V and W in German versus English. We are talking comparative linquistics here, to put it another way. Vee in English is Fau in Deutsch. So that Vee, & double U (VW) is Fau Vay in Deutsch. But those are the same letters!!!
.
This is how language works, by the individual variations on the complex system themes of the sounds corresponding to letters. & why etymologies are so damned interesting. Because it shows linguistic “processes” at work, which are both least energy and efficient, as well. & thus stable.
.
In the ancient Egyptian there was a vowel shift from the 17th dynasty of the Tchehuti to the Ramessid. Moses, as in Aahmose (Amos, the first Pharaoh of the dynasty) became Ramesses from Ramose. This is a very slight change in mouth shape which goes from “o” to short “e”. And it’s easy then to see the shift and how it occurs.  Thus we have Moses of the Old Testament out of the 17th dynasty NOT the Ramessid which is a clear & archaeologically proven to be mistake.
.
And then using that same word of Moses, we see the softening of the “s” to the “sh” of Moshe in modern Hebrew, compared to the old. This also is seen with Mas in Espagnol, being Mas (Mash) in Portuguese; & is also seen in English when we say Special, in American English (Inglish) it comes out “speshul”;  where as in proper, accepted English in London it’s Spessial. The same for Appreshiate in American versus Apresiate in English.
.
Or as Churchil  so descriptively once said, The English and Americans, a common people separated by a common ocean and a common language.
.
There are many other examples of these vowels and consonantal shifts. For instance the “th”, in the unvoiced versus the voiced “th”, as in Those versus “thin”. And then the D, or DH, sounds in Old English, as well. & in today’s German speakers who can’t say “th” either, but is always as my g’pa said, his mother being full blood Penn Deutsch, Dis and dat Tink! for “this and that thing”.
.
Those are some  interesting aspects of our language, seen by comparison processing by our language centers, and indeed the rest of the cortical cell columns of Mountcastle systems.
.
So we soon see that gift in English means a present such as given at special occ. of X-mas & birthdays, while it means in German, a Poison.
.
On the other hand we see Tur, meaning Door in English, the same consonantal shift. The T being not voiced, the D being voiced. A simple connection of the positions of the tongue being the same, but the D requires a vocal cord activation while “tee” does not.
.
So we find at once that we cannot be too dogmatic in our standards, or we miss the subtle points. Nor can we be too loose or we begin to admit too many loose associations, but not clearly related words. Those usually found by substantial, different word origins.
.
Thus our findings in linguistics, esp. for the etymologies of words, not only established pronunciations, but NOT absolutely,  & only cpmparatively, which is in fact relativity description. How words are related to other words, clearly. & we learn as in the use of the tree, not to get too dogmatic about it, either.
.
This is the sophrosyne, the “golden mean ” of creativity. It must make least energy sense, as in the positions of the tongue, mouth, and vocal cords use. But it can sometimes be otherwise.
.
Sadly, information decays in time and we do NOT know what kinds of accents our ancestors used to state the same words as we do, let alone all those obsolete words and pronunciations, too. Given the vast numbers of English accents extant & used world wide, and even in the UK alone, from Manchester, to Liverpudlian, to Glasgow brogues, English in London and to Yorkshire. Or from Boston to NYC, to the southern accents of many kinds, to the standard English of the Midwest American. (which is not actually Midwest any more, but a hold over for when it was. It’s North Central US now!). Or the Philly or Chi City accents, either. Not to mention the racial groups in the US, which can have dialects which are simplifications of English, thus least energy, the so called Pigeon English seen in many ways, world wide, from the Pacific to the Caribbean, & markedly so.
.
Thus the Etymologies AND the dialects give us much more information about language than we have had before, by this vast comparison processing of spelling, meaning and the dialectical forms of the same, at first, earliest, modern English.
.
Old English offers a great many examples of this, but sadly we do NOT have accurate recordings of OE, & we cannot therefore be very sure about how those words were pronounced, exactly, 700 years ago. We now know dialects change, and can change markedly over time. Even the Thee & Thou of early Stuart times  and earlier Elizabethan English changed.  As seen in the earliest folios of Shakespeare and his associates.
.
But the interesting point here is the “-gh and -ght” English word endings, with Ought, aught, eight, -ight, and others. We find so many forms of how “ought” is pronounced, that’s it’s really interesting, fully SIX different, confusing ways!!! Separated only by comparison usage, and thus the context of the surrounding words. For example, Awt,is said Ought, or Aught; then -ough as in cough, or hiccup as in Hiccough; then Ruff as in rough; then tuff as in tough, and so forth.
.
That’s also found in words derived very clearly from the older Knecht, pronouncing the -echt as eckt. We see this in the German (& Scandinavian), Lands Knecht, which is very closely connected to the Knight as in “nite” in English, and indeed is the same word. And the OE gave it as Knight. and Night as opposed to Day the same way, too.  So the etymologies give not only the meanings of words and their origins, but doubly reinforce HOW those were likely spoken, even “though” we should not, wisely, be too dogmatic about it
.
Because thermodynamically information decays in time. and thus the dialects spoken by our ancestors are largely lost to us, even as many whole languages have also been lost to us, as well. But comparison process thinking can partly, using the known rules re-constructed relatively speaking, give us some idea of what happened before.
.
But, again, there is NO certain information, no absolute space, time& thus no total understanding possible of the languages, either. But we can apply the epistemology of Einstein to language as well as to physics, and description and mathematics. This substantially extends Einsteinian epistemology, largely, to most everything going on between our ears, for that matter.
.
Therefore the Relativity of the Cortex in our language centers, as well as global, cerebrally,l very likely.
.
.
And this:
.
.
It’s very clear then that the CP creates creativity and understanding by creating by comparison processing of events in existence. Being the wellspring of creativity of most types, this simple system shows its value.
.
Because when we need understanding how languages and their various forms are created, by using comparative linguistic methods, we can do so, clearly. But with the absolutes firmly forbidden & likelihoods being predominant. Thus preponderance of evidence, rather than dogmatic intolerance of differing views. There are no absolutes in linguistic analyses any more than there are in space/time physics or much else. It’s like QM, stochastic, probabilities & possibilities, rather than cut and dried, final certainties or deterministic to the end.
.
Thus we begin to understand better how events come about within us and outside of us, by using the same, nearly (but not quite) universal principles of CP, S/F methods, LE, and Complex systems, process thinking, and the unlimited methods those create. Eschewing all the while, the idealistic fallacies that mental outputs are any kind of final or ultimate standard. Empirical events are the standards. Not what WE think merely, but what’s more likely going on by using our relativistic standards and our instruments; and photographic and related electronic imaging and recordings to confirm, improve & amplify our perceptions of events.
.
And thus do the etymologies show us not only how our minds work, but how we create the organizations of our understanding. The creation of the Hierarchies of our knowledge, the indices, the dictionaries, the telephone and city directories. The hierarchies of the mathematics, starting with arithmetic and rising up thru algebras, which are also comparison processes, largely. and created, populated & processed and those hierarchies navigated by CP, as well.
.
Our standards and conventions should be both loose enough to accommodate our understanding and explanations and to generate events, but tight enough to have real meanings, too.
.
Thus studying etymologies, not only shows us how we group, categorize and hierarchically organize the known languages, dialects & tongues, but how we understand most everything else, using the same, common cortical column functions, the comparison processes active there in every normally thinking human beings. Regardless of cultural origins, we have this all in common. We speak and can understand all of the languages because they are all processed in our cortices by the same systems, virtually.
.
& This is why the child can learn any language.. Because there is NO universal grammar. That’s looking for the black cat in pitch dark areas of vast size. When the cat is not there!!!
.
It’s the common brain processes of the cortex which create the comparison methods we use, a la Dr. Paul B. Stark’s “Method of Comparison” at UC Berkeley. More accurately & less linearly, the MethodS (plural) of comparison.
.
That’s what’s going on. and math cannot yet follow, nor can linear methods, nor deductive logics, either. But the higher logics of the CP can create these, can navigate these landmarks, the hierarchies which it creates, and organize them, as well, into verbal, visual and other kinds of maps. Those are the keys to understanding.
.
The lowly, simple words we use hold that much meaning when studied etymologically, by comparison processing, clearly. & the way is now open to improvements in our creativities, our standards/conventions and in every field, as well. This is the promise of the new CP, LE, S/F, complex system and all the unlimited methods, techniques, skills, and devices, tools & technologies those can create. Without effective limit.  It’s a much more universal system than seen before, and we are on the cusp of that major epistemological, paradigmatic shift. the early part of yet another S-curve of exponential growth.
.
S/F (structuralism) creates the details. And Eschewing idealisms creates the nearly unlimited possibilities, as well.

 

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

3A.. Extensions & Applications, parts 1 & 2.

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

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/

47. How Physicians Create New Information

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

48. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai-2/

49. The Neuroscience of Problem Solving

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/the-neuroscience-of-problem-solving/

50. A Standard Method to Understand Neurochemistry’s Complexities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/a-standard-method-to-understand-neurochemistrys-complexities/

51. Problem Solving for Self Driving Cars: a Model.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/problem-solving-for-self-driving-cars-a-model/

52. A Trio of Relationships and Connections

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/a-trio-of-relationships-connections/

53: Einstein’s Great Subtleties:  Einstein’s Edge

https://wordpress.com/post/jochesh00.wordpress.com/583

54. The Problem of Solving P not Equal to NP

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/the-problem-of-solving-p-not-equal-to-np/

55. How to Create a Blue Rose

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/how-to-create-a-blue-rose/

56. The Etymologies of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/the-etymologies-creativity/

57.  A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/a-basic-model-of-a-unifying-system-of-most-all-knowledge/

58. Understanding Psych with S/F Brain Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/understanding-psychology-with-s-f-methods/

 

 

How to Create a Blue Rose

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
.
There was recently a finalized attempt to make a blue rose and as usual came out with a purple one which was not honestly marketed, either. Plenty of those so called blue roses which are mostly purple, as well. But a true Blue Rose is not seen. & as the “Blue Rose” would make a LOT of money esp., and in the very least, at the Rose Bowl Parade every year, intense interest for 100’s of years has been made to find one.
.
The problem is that the researchers are micromanaging and ignoring complex systems. Which is why the unintended purple rose came about, after years of work and $12 Millions invested, and failed. Simply by trying to put in a delphinidin gene into the rose genome, and then a modification, which didn’t work, either. The system is complex system, and cannot be reliably manipulated linearly, either. Everything has an effect on lots of other systems. So a single change is unlikely, like most linear thinking, to affect the whole and give the expected output.
.
As usual, there was a disparity between what was expected and what was found. Festinger’s “cognitive dissonance” often seen with complex systems, struck again. OR as Asimov wrote about a leader in “The Foundation” series, “A direct man to the end!!!”
.
.
This is how to do it and why it will work. There is a little known fact, yet it’s critical to understanding WHY and how things work between our ears. We know penicillin works. & we know did NOT at first know WHY 90 years ago, but THAT it did work to kill the bugs. We knew by its outcomes, by “its fruits”. IOW, our knowledge was incomplete, but we knew it worked, none the less. About 50 years later it was found out how it worked by blocking cell wall synthesis in susceptible bacteria. & with the appearance of PCN resistance, various new PCN’s have been created, including finding the cephalosporins, which were beta lactam rings, as well.
.
But the antibiotic resistances occurred, again, unintended effects, unexpected. The universe of events doesn’t always work like our mental models do. There is a great difference between our models of events and how those actually work, as we are reminded nearly daily. The word is not the thing. The fallacy of the idealistic beliefs is that our brain outputs are NOT final truths, but stand only when those are compared to real events. The logical fallacy of idealisms is that brain outputs are somehow superior to events in existence. That’s what empiricism has taught us, and many don’t realize that fallacy even today, although Galileo knew it 400 years ago, very likely.
.
This is how to block most all bacterial resistances; For the foreseeable future:
.
.
Please peruse down to the paragraph beginning: ” Thus pharmacology is essentially massive trial and error….” That’s the beginning of the solution but takes one more, highly critical step to make it work without limits.
.
We do NOT have to know how something works to know that it does. Paul B. Stark’s comparison methods show this occurring, as well.
.
.
The Method of Comparison
.
To get a deeper idea of what’s going on, let’s simply compare Luther Burbank’s methods of breeding plants he wanted, which was overwhelmingly successful compared to micromanaging and trying to insert genes into complex system genomes, which is highly unlikely to work, unless very, very lucky.
.
What he did was to observe  & select the plants that he wanted in terms of taste, sizes and if they bred true or not. And then picked the ones he wanted by making a VERY great many of them, thus allowing genetic’s fullest diversity to present itself. In short, he let the natural systems do the genetics for him and didn’t have to delve into the genetics or manipulations of such complex systems such as 1000’s, even 10K’s of genes interacting, which cannot be solved logically nor mathematically, either. It’d take huge amounts of time. He Saw the larger picture, the forest for the trees.
.
And that was basically how Burbank was so successful. He let natural systems show him the possibilities &  then chose the ones he wanted, and was wildly successful with this means. And why he succeeded whereas blue roses remain elusive.
.
Thus we must use more complex system methods & let the natural systems do the sorting, looking NOT for the genetic manipulationa to work, but to let natural systems do the work of sorting for us.
.
There are other blue pigments than delphinidine, for instance. Blue forget me nots have those, but expressing those in flowers is not easy. There is putunidin, also There are many kinds of flowers with blue pigments in them, but putting that gene into a rose plant, which has red pigments in the stems, and leaves, can be the problem. It will create a purple flower. So any kind of rose, which makes white flowers but does Not have the red pigments will work, possibly.
.
The other point is making a blue flower plant cell fuse with a white flower rose. That’s the way to do it. Then choose those which have true blue rose outputs, that is, make a lot of plant fused cells, and then successively fuse with roses to make a blue rose, where the plant looks like a rose. That way, making sure at each stage, the flowers are blue. Let the natural systems select FOR a blue rose, against 100’s of trials. It will take some time but solves the sorting problem neatly, just as Burbank did.
.
And that’s how to make a blue rose, very likely.

The Problem of Solving P NOT Equal to NP

By Herb Wiggins, MD, Clinical Neurosciences; creator/discoverer of the Comparison Process/Methods, Mar. 2014.
.
Descriptions are changed into mathematical forms in this way. Each step takes a description to a form of polynomial math solutions, and each step ADDS information, sequentially to the fullest solution. It Translates verbal descriptions into mathematical expressions, throughout. And thus solves the problem, taking NP to P. There are unlimited numbers of such examples, but these are the simplest which show the richest panoplies of what’s possible, much like taking the sensations of vision, feelings, touch, heat, position, etc., including hardness and softnesses to linear, math measuring scales, of same.
.
The size of the trial and error sorting problem is also a huge bar to solving many problems. It takes lots of time, as it does evolution, to sort through all the complexisties to find answers to problems. And often, there is not just a single answer, but in complex systems, unlimited numbers of answers. That also can add to the time taken to w/o a solution which is growth capable and useful as well as practical, too.
.
The P not equal to NP problem rests upon a very critical juncture of understanding problem solving, essentially math problem solving. There is a $1 M prize for the mathematical proof of this problem, the Millennial Prize.
.
Here’s how to solve this problem.  First of all, the structure of the question, P not equal to NP is a significant part of the problem itself.
.
Problems not solved go to problems solved. The P not equal to NP is NOT in the proper order to be solved, either, chronologically nor sequentially. It’s, in short, bass/ackwards!!!  Problems not solved go to Problems solved. This is the first major point to be made. The sequence MUST be cast into normal time flow of natural, logical processing..
.
Thus all/most all NP is Not equal to P. & Is more properly the question asked.
.
The other basic, structural problem is that many solutions to problems cannot be found within logic nor math. Those insights must be supplied from the outside, then incorporated within. Thus the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem are once again in the fore. We cannot understand, describe or apply many systems from “within’, but must venture outside & see the problem as more a critical kind of “larger problem” of creativity and its origins. We must take off the blindfolds and see the entire elephant, not just a too small piece of it. We must see the larger, visualized picture, the forest for the trees. Thus to solve such a problem we must figure out how creativity works and how the brain creates information, data, organizes those into knowledge, and further, creates creativities. That being done, the thing is more simply solved.
.
Once those are realized then we can take a simple cameo series of solutions and then elucidate HOW the brain solves such problems, i.e., converts NP to P. Here it is.
.
We are trying to get from Dallas  to Houston. How do we go about this, verbally and mathematically?  Innate in this question are the multiple solutions to that problem, or HOW we mathematize a verbally descriptive problem to solve it, and WHY, the much deeper question is why we use math at all, compared to verbal descriptions? IOW, we are taking the verbal description which is NP to a polynomial math description equivalent. This is how we create mathematical equivalences to verbal descriptions and in short, how experimental maths are created.
.
When Friston, in “Consciousness” shows how the least energy events are mathematical treated reasonably well by Lyupanov numbers, he’s doing the same thing. The repeating stabilities are stable due to least energy. and those are very largely expressed & handled by using Lyupanov math and methods.
.
 https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-not-a-thing-but-a-process-of-inference
.
When Whitehead writes that “Any society (or group in a society) which cannot break out of its current abstractions, after a limited period of time, stagnates, he can be seen to be describing a series of S-curves, the cubic equations which describe development, growth, market growth, changes, emergence/embryologies, as well as evolution, most all of which are S curves. It also describes an avalanche, the falling of the avalanche growing exponentially & then at last tapering off at the bottom of the hill, the inversions of the S-curve. So there it is again.
.
First, from Dallas must find the directions to go to Houston. We can go many different ways to get there, but first the best way is?  That means we have in an IT, Shannon Bandwagon sense, created a sorting of the 360 degrees of direction and found we go about SE. The shortest most direct, least energy and efficient direction. Our solutions then MUST have least energy built into them. this is essential to solving problems and creativity. Also, That adds information to the solution, does it not?  We head roughly in the 75 degrees heading, which is SE. This at once adds information to P.
.
Then we must find out how FAR Dallas is from Houston. Well, a friend tells us, it’s about 4 hours’ drive. So we know roundly, it will take us that time, more or less. But we have a car, and we must go that way. Now how FAR is it, we descriptively ask?
.
It’s about 250 miles, generally we find out by those who have compared the distance to a set standard, that is measured the distance. That is created the data of about 250 miles in distance
.
So, now what? How much gasoline do we need to get there?  There’s a verbal description. We convert that to mathematics by running our car to about 1/2 full on the gas tank dial. Then we go to the nearest gas station and top out the tank. And we find it takes about 7.5 gallons to do that. So we know by a simple algebraic method, it will be 1/2X = 7.5 gals, & thus our tank holds 15 gallons!!!
.
Now what do we do with that? We create a proportion, a ratio, a Comparison of the miles driven per gallon of gasoline used. This is like creating Pi, a standard, a constant from comparing the circumference to the diameter of a circle, to create Pi, which we can use to elucidate the truths of spherical geometries, mathematically. Creating that new standard, a comparison, ratio, proportion (the basis of much algebra, so it turns out), allows us to compute the areas, volumes, etc., of roundish objects, to some degree of accuracy. Information has been created and that added to create a solution of spherical algebras, themselves. Comparison processes are algebras.
.
So we take the miles/gallon standard, convention, and try to solve that one. Well, we just happened to note, the last time we filled the tank to full, we’d gone about 25,517 odometer miles, and we compare that to the odometer at the gas station we just filled up at, & it was 25,742. So, we compare the two, find a 225 miles difference, by subtraction, another comparison process.
.
So we do another algebraic equation,  Miles/gallon = 225/7.5 and that is about 30. Again, comparison processes which drives most all algebras. We, once again, have added information to create a solution.
.
We know that Houston is about 240 miles away, and so that means we need about 8 and a fraction gals. to get there, and about 17 gallons for a round trip, plus or minus how much we drive around in Houston.
.
So tanking up, will get us there, but not back. At each stage, we are using comparisons to create new information which we can mathematically process by algebra to find answers. This is how we solve not polynomial problems by converting them into polynomial, algebraic solutions, is not?
.
At each stage we create relationships, numerical, between real existing events, to treat them. We cannot do this by description, but only partly. The math allows us, in each case, to more accurately treat and understand how to solve the problem. Each relationship gives us answers, creates data from Einsteinian measuring epistemology of a relatively fixed, stable standard/conventions, by which we compare to create data. In these cases, miles to Houston, gallons in our tank. Miles/gallon, and at last, Speeds, which are ratios again, comparing distance over time. Yet another ratio!!!
.
How do we use that, then? We know that it takes about 4 hours to get to Houston. We know by asking we use I-45 to get there going roughly SE, because that’s the direction, roughly, I-45 goes.  So there we have it, but for the last, how long will it take to get there?
.
IF we travel a fixed speed, say 65 miles/hour, then it will take just under 4 hours to get to Houston. So if to make the 11 AM appointment we have to be on the road by no later than 6:30 to get there 1/2 hour earlier, for getting ready to get to the place, where the appointment is. Again we create and find new information to solve the problem, taking NP to P, adding new information at each point to create a solution.
.
Now, how do we find the place we are getting to? We have an address for a place in Houston. & we compare that to a map, showing the alphabetical street name plus the numerical address. We compare the two and find the street by trial and error, relatively by comparison, again on the map. We find the off ramp from the I-45 road to the nearest street that will take us there. Some extra time, going slower than 65 mph, too.
.
So THAT is why we use mathematics. It allows us to find, predict and travel more efficiently than merely verbal, not numerical methods of math. It’s precise within some practical limits, and we can plan better with it, than just going SW for 4 hours at about 65 miles an hour. Math is least energy efficient when used in such ways. Words, descriptions cannot do that. That’s why math’s used. It efficiently allows us to solve problems which verbal descriptions alone, cannot.
.
The efficiencies of prediction, planning ahead and so forth are what’s going on here. NP becomes P. We convert a verbal problem to a polynomial solution by using these already proven methods.  But note that the map reading is NOT mathematical, at all, though it is comparison processing against the standards of N, S, W, E and so forth!!  So we are still using verbal descriptions with some counting of the street numbers, however.
.
And at EACH spot in the problem solving, we are ADDING information, in an Information Theory, Shannon’s Bandwagon sense, where we can solve the problem, confine the data, & thus more completely describe what we are doing!!  Information rises, entropy goes down, and the description using math is far, far more complete than if we used merely words.
But note that we can write and type all words to describe, teach, speak express and use the math, but that math cannot be used to describe much at all of Shakespeare, or written words. It goes one way, words to math, some a limited extent, math to words, but the latter is very limited. This reflects the origins and neuroanatomy of maths in the L Post. Temp. speech centers, where it’s developed, interdigitates with the language processing centers of Wernicke’s area.  when we damage language processing we also damage math, as well. It’s a pure relationship, comparing structure of the brain to the functions which are damaged when the cortex there is significantly damaged or impaired due to various causes. Structure/functions comparisons universally show us how the brain works. As well as for chemical, building, and much other  engineering approaches. Structures of atoms, molecules and even polypeptides and proteins are closely related to their functions. And thus S/F relationships by comparison create information about how events work.
.
It’s also how we convert the senses of hot, cold, motion, hard/soft (Moh’s scale and GPA’;s) to maths as well. Most all of our linear scales are NP converted to P, therefore & information is inevitably created as well as added.
.
Now compare when we translate a bit of French into English, or vice versa. Are we adding information? Not really in a semantic sense, altho we are showing the information of equivalence of the French sentences to the English. But new information is NOT being added. Translations are thus comparison processes as well. The closest efficiently expressed phrase in each language compared to the other phrases in another language is exactly what translation is.
.
Je suis ici.
Ich bin hier
Estoy aqui.
Hic Sum.
I am here.
.
& this shows that very, very well, in fact.
.
How this applies to the upsetting finding that if Gravity and relativity are quantized, we don’t get anything new is easy. Simply, for the obvious reason, that we are NOT adding any new info, but simply “Quantizing”, read “translating ” into QM. Thus not much info is going to be added. If we want more understanding then we must find more equivalencies, or more relationships in an Einsteinian sense, such that ER is related (but not equal) to EPR. ER bridges are related intrinsically to quantum entanglements. That’s how we learn and create new understanding.
.
In order to ADD information we must, as Einstein stated, find new relationships among events (Physics & Reality, 1936). This adds to our understanding, and converts when mathematized, NP to P. Adding info, IOW. But more of that, later. In short we solve the problems first using descriptive, visual models; and then we mathematize the expressions, in order to measure them. This requires some creativity as well, but information is then being added again, creating P from NP.  Einsteinian Relativity was first formulates & THEN Minkowski & he mathematized it. Trying to solve a problem using math only when new relationships are to be found is simply not the way it works. Math follows recognition/relationship creative thinking, but it does NOT create it. Math is not recognition of new relationships, associations, connections, causality, etc.
.
This is largely what’s going on here. Have shown how we create the relatively fixed, standard conventions & scales to measure volumes, temps, hardnesses and so forth. how we convert warm, warmer warmest to Hot hotter hottest, or cool, cooler coolest, and cold, colder coldest, as well. It’s a verbal form, linearizing of the temp scale.
.
Briefly, we use the freezing point of water, 32 deg. F. versus the boiling point of water, 212 degrees, 180 difference between the two, and find a standard temp, pressure, and conditions to create that measuring standard. The epistemology of Einstein applies. These are NOT absolute, standards, but relative standards. The same for time and space. They have arbitrary units, as well, Km./m. or Miles/gallon, instead of Km./liter, is not?
.
& why do we use such standards? They are efficient. But why metric, versus English system of weights and measures?
.
Efficiency. It’s easier to use 10 times ten times 10 than 4 quarts to a gallon. 32 oz. to the quart, 2 pints to the quart. It’s least energy efficient, we see. Just as math is least energy efficient to describe better than some verbal terms, how far something is from another, is not?
.
Least energy rules.
.
 So this is how using our senses of hardness  creates Moh’s scale & is then mathematized to GPA’s.  In degrees it’s 32 F. & deg. C., zero , and  212 boiling point of water, 100 C.  & water is readily available, easy to use and find, as well. It’s an efficient comparison standard,, therefore. And fixed, stable, however arbitrary the units we use, tho in this case, efficient.
.
The same is true for the feet, hands, distances and length measures we have adopted, as well.
.
.
This is how we convert NP to P. Creativity using comparison processes of descriptions to maths. NOT the other way round. The distances, in feet, hands, and so forth, became numericized, mathematically using relatively fixed, comparison standards, which are efficient.
.
In the same way, we solve mathematical problems by comparison processing. We take NP to P, by ADDING information. and thus all NP is NOT equal to all P, because P contains More information in an IT sense, than NP. In each case this can be shown by comparing the info content of the NP side to the solved, P, side.
.
Thus the first person who can use this, clear, descriptive method, to prove, mathematically and logically, that NP is Not equal to P because their information Contents are not the same, will get $1 Million and a lot of interesting outcomes for same. Information Theory is the basic key to this proof.
.
We cannot conclude, however, that in some cases NP is equal to P, because that might be possible. With tautologies, and translations it’s likely. But there are most cases in which NP is NOT equal to P because P contains more information.
.
But there is this critical point. Each statement be it NP, or P contains information. If more information in an IT sense is found in the solution as seems likely, compared to NP, then it’s very likely that solutions to NP going to P mean that in each Case, NP is NOT equal to P. This simple IT test of info content is sufficient to establish NP is Not equal to P.  And creating the above descriptions which are then translated into polynomial math forms shows this, repeatedly as above.
.
Problems can be solved in this way, taking verbal descriptions which create information to math forms which create mathematical measuring forms, which contain more information than the NP side. Thus in most cases, NP is NOT equal to P. Because at each stage we are creating descriptive information changing that into mathematical forms, which measurements (amount of gas in the tank, distance and direction to Houston; how long it will take to drive there, how much gas will be needed) create information to solve the problems, very clearly, and plainly. & in most cases, this occurs, and can be found simply by testing the information content descriptively and mathematically, too.
.
In trivial cases of the tautologies in logic, NP is equal to P, is the rule. However, where creativity is required to convert NP into a polynomial form, it’s very likely  the added Info needed to create P makes them not equal.
.
Taking the problem of finding out how to solve Archimedes’ problem also shows those unique and critical insights of the comparison process “Ratios”, which the mileage, speed, & in miles/gal., miles/hour, and show how speed is related to travel time, as well. Creating those polynomic ratios does this.
.
So for Mass/volume, or in more real terms, gms./cc. we have this. When Archimedes was trying to figure out how to determine if the gold given by the Syracusan king to his goldsmith was completely used, or he stole some, he realized, again, a deep relationship, which could be expressed descriptively. Gold weighs more than silver volume for volume. It’s palpably, by our senses, heavier. (note also how we convert this heaviness sense to a math scale by using comparing of an unknown mass against a known mass in the other balance arm pan!) But when he put his feet, then legs into the water, he realized that he could measure the ratio of mass/volumes, which we call density, to create a standard measurement, that is to create a density measure to more accurately describe this.
.
So he could measure both volumes of water, and weights of gold very accurately. And when he compared the mass to the volume, the ratio which also creates like distance to time creates speed/velocity, he created a ratio which followed his verbally descriptive impression that gold is heavier than water as well as to the other base metals. That ratio he could not measures descriptively and it became named in English, density, of mass in gram/cc.  That insight created the solution to the problem, taking NP to P, by adding understanding that a relationship could be created. & with that creative insight, we find the “Eureka” hallmark in most all cases, rom the insights of Darwin and Wallace that led to evolution. From the insight by Kepler that led to elliptical orbits. To the insights by Newton that falling could be mathematized for N=2, and produce a least energy solution, once again, as does the travel description, to the planetary orbits.
.
Realizing that the above massive use of and creation of ratios such as miles/hour, or per gallon, or such, create the means to solve these. & those are ALL comparison processes or math ratios, in short.
.
Thus, creative activities create information of how, as Einstein states in his “Physics and Reality”, 1936, that understanding is the finding of relationships among events in existence; which are found verbally and descriptively & then if mathematized create greater and more precise measurements, while arbitrary in some sense, are yet efficient, fixed and stable standards. & NOT by in any real way, absolute, but relational, relative and thus most all comparison processing, as ratios, proportions, etc. are. & thus, we find the relativity of the Cortex and that how mathematics of our measuring scales are all created, because NP is NOT equal to P.
.
This is the Neuroscience & relativity of problem solving, in a nutshell.
.
That’s how it’s done.

Einstein’s Great Subtleties: Einstein’s Edge

 Einstein’s Great Subtleties; Einstein’s Edge
.
 By Herb Wiggins, MD, Clinical Neurosciences; creator/discoverer of the Comparison Process/Methods, Mar. 2014.
.
Raffiniert ist Der Herr Gott, aber boshaft  ist er nicht.
 (Subtle is the Lord God, but he is not mean.)
 .
Preceding every major advance in physics comes an epistemological advance.
(Einstein’s new measuring epistemology)
 .
Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe.
(AKA gravitation, least energy collections of mass)
 .
Our Understanding arises from finding the relationships of events in the universe. –“Physics and Reality”, 1936
.
“Almost anything which jogs us out of our current abstractions, is a good thing.”  —Alfred Whitehead
 .
Gott wurfielt nicht!!  (God doesn’t Gamble. QM’s probabilities are not the case.)
 .
“Spookie action at a distance” is not the case.  (Quantum entanglement), The EPR Paradox.
.
“In order to do good physics, we must put the personal (emotional biases) aside.”
 .
Einstein’s Thought experiments (Process thinking of Whitehead)  as per Dr. Sagan’s “Cosmos” series Re the similarities of gravity and being in an accelerating field of reference (as in a rocket, or in an elevator)
.
Einstein’s “great subtleties” are not just any thing of modest import, but an oxymoron of exquisite depth and sensitivity to how events in our universe can be subtle yet of vast import, viz., the littlest can be VIP, a very important point. Taking a major hypothesis by Wolfgang Pauli best and most easily illustrates this.  When Pauli was working on beta decay, where in a nucleus a neutron decays into a proton and and electron, there was by comparison, a significant difference between the mass/energy measures before and after Beta decay. & this could not be accounted for. Because in any neutron decay it must change to a proton and an electron, both of specific masses, and often carrying significant energies as measurable velocities.. The First Law of Thermodynamics, which is universal and only broken probabilistically, demands that in our universe of events, there is conservation of mass and energy and that no matter or energy can completely disappear or be created. The mass/energy of the neutron MUST, therefore equal the mass/energy of the Proton and electron, but it did NOT!!!
.
Thus where was the extra mass and energy found in beta decay? Enter Nobelist Enrico Fermi, who left Italy for political reasons (his wife was Jewish). He postulated, because there was no sign of any particle on the experiments, other than a proton and electron, that a very small neutral particle was carrying off all of the missing mass/energy. And in his work, Fermi named it the Neutrino, Italiano for the “little neutral one”. So small in fact, that it’d be very, very hard to find. So tiny that they despaired of ever finding it. That is, it was a very, very great subtlety, the smallest known relatively stable particle yet it must exist. At last the neutrino was found and it was so small, for years no one knew if it had mass or not.
.
But there’s another part of the neutrino story about how the disparity between the numbers of expected neutrinos from the sun’s hydrogen fusion processes gave only 1/3 of the expected neutrinos upon repeated testing (scientific confirmation). That is a very great subtlety, Festinger’s “Cognitive dissonance”, which usually precedes major discoveries and revolutions in the sciences. Very similar to what Thomas Kuhn writes about in “The Structure…..”. The difference between what is expected by a human brain model versus what the universe shows us by experimental testing, checking and finally, confirmation of events in existence, is likely to be going on. Kepler’s realization that Brahe’s “8 minutes of arc” disparity between a round versus elliptical orbit of Mars created the Keplerian revolution in astronomy, as per Kuhn.
.
The neutrino is very, very small, and can travel at near light speeds, too. Often reaching terrestrial detectors before a supernova’s light reaches the earth, in many cases. This tiny subtlety gives in fact, a cosmic “heads up” that one of the greatest explosions in the universe, the Supernova, is on its way. Again, the subtlety of the very, almost non-existent mass shows that one of the very biggest events in the universe is on its way. Thus the Neutrino is not once, but doubly a very great cosmic subtlety.
.
Yet another huge subtlety of Einstein was his life’s work. Most know of this work on General and Special Relativity, which vast expansion and improvement in physics, for which he never received a Nobel Prize, inexplicably, showed that light speed was a constant and could not be exceeded by fermions, that is normal matter. No matter how much energy we put into accelerating particles or indeed any amount of normal mass, we cannot reach light speed. This is an exponential barrier of great import.
.
.
Please peruse section 6.
.
The point is that high speed mass gains energy as it’s accelerated, that it gains velocity of greater and greater amounts. So here Einstein was exploring what went on at the upper end of the spectrum of the heats/energies/velocities of particles of matter. & that is the beginning of his first subtlety. The exponential, asymptotic barrier of light speed placed upon all known masses normally accelerated.
.
He by using thought experiments, which will be discussed later, about what it was like to ride on a photon. What was that event like and how those masses would change as they reached closer and closer to light speed?  And here comes the next subtlety.  When the ether was found to be very unlikely to exist, by the MIchelson/Morely experiments, something had to be done. So Lorentz and Fitzgerald created a set of equations, which showed that ether was not needed. But no explanation of why time slowed down at higher and higher velocities, that energy increased as it did, but never reached light speed;  and why length and width, compared to a stationary observer, would be shortened.
.
This was as revolutionary as the realization, the putting together of WHY that would occur, because absolute time and space were not real, but time and space were highly likely relative to a set, relatively fixed, stable standards. And in such cases, there could be no absolute space or time.
.
Now that insight is quite quite ancient, and goes back 2400 years to Protagoras who stated that “Man is the measure of all things” and that because of this measuring activity, there were not any absolute values of anything. But all was relative to a set, stable set of standards, which can be quite arbitrary. IOW, whether we use meters, inches, stadia or any other measure, the fixed, stable  (TD efficient, least energy) standard eliminated the possibility, very likely, of absolute space. & indeed, absolute time, as well. No total synchronization of events is possible, either. This was part of the major epistemological revolution of Einstein. Preceding every major physics advance comes an epistemological advance.
.
But why it should have take 2300 years from 450 BC to 1915 to be realized as likely true, and then developed into a part of physics? It is quite an interesting question, which cannot be answered here.  However, “The Ages of the Brain, Brain Hardwiring”, which will be finished at a future time, will address specifically how this occurs.  Likely, as Max Planck wrote, “Progress in physics proceeds one funeral at a time.” Of which Einstein believed, because it took much time for his new model to be approved of and confirmed, and then still not believed by all others. & of which, he himself, with respect to quantum mechanics to which he held great and life long objections, was an example of himself. Thus, more subtleties, very likely.
.
So we have Einstein’s work on the very,  very fast, high velocity, high energy content fermions.  And along that same line, velocity/energy. His next work was on Brownian movement. For a very long time the problem in physics was how particles moved and behaved in bulk. It took years for particles to be seen by their effects and how this worked, too. But Einstein was now looking at it. Visualizing it, and doing thought experiments on it.
.
This resulted in his next great work, showing the characteristics, the relationships among events, which created more understanding. In short, atoms were postulated to exist, but no one could see them directly, even tho they were inferred as the most likely, simplest and efficient explanation. In other words, they satisfied the least energy, thermodynamic rule of Occam’s Razor. That is, the simplest hypothetical explanation for an event/phenomenon is that which uses the least new terms, and describes it most completely. Occam’s Razor is thus a least energy solution to most problems. It’s a reality sieve, which allows us to compare most all the hypotheses which can explain an event of types, and then by that simplest explanation, we know it’s highly likely to be the case. That is yet quite another kind of subtlety, that thermodynamics, an aspect of the Second Law, least energy, lies behind the workings & sorting actions of Occam’s Razor. & very likely, most all other energy requiring processes in our universe.
.
.
& so it was left to Einstein, to describe motion in ambient room temps, in gases and liquids which could prove how Brownian motion occurred and that atoms/molecules were the most efficient & simplest explanation of that relationship.  His work showed the connections between chemistry, physics, kinetic movement and thermodynamics. Thus his statement, in “Physics and Reality”, 1936, that our understanding of events arises from the relationships among events in existence. Subtle, simply, easy, elegant and above all fruitful as most all goog models must be.
.
Two whit:  x squared = 2Dt; & the conclusions of his extended model by two French men in 1908 and 1909, showed that his model was correct, & accurately accounted for what was seen experimentally. Thus he produced a means by which the atomic/molecule model could be tested, confirmed, because it worked.
.
And that is magic!!! How did he know it was correct? We are not told. And these subtleties are accomplished by him time and again, seemingly without end, as will be shown again. Einstein was asked what the secret to his creativity was, and he stated, don’t reveal your sources. And he never has and did not. But looking backwards, we can begin to see what he was doing. How Einstein’s brain/mind was working to create his creativities.
.
So now, we have the energies of atoms being increased to near light speed, and in normal, terrestrial conditions the energies/velocities of fermions by his Brownian movement work, but he was Not done yet, not by any means.
.
What happens at the other end of the linear spectrum of fermion velocities/speeds/heats/energy content? Near Absolute zero. Again, yet another exponential,barrier! We cannot reach absolute zero. Our universe of events is tightly contained & held between light speed at the top end, through Brownian movement at normal temps, and at the lowest temperatures possible, yet another exponential barrier. How does this come about? How can this be?
.
And yet Einstein got there first, with yet another set of subtleties: the Einstein-Bose condensates.  & here once again was his foresighted magic. Growing older, he knew he had to work with younger persons to do his work (CF: EPR), and use all his immense creativity and insights. So about 1925 they published their findings, that at extremely low velocities of matter, atoms and other particles would create a quantum effect where a common quantum state was shared among all those fermion particles trapped in such an ultra low energy state.
.
At the time, there was no way to test the Bose/Einstein model. But it was Einstein & so eventually it was found out how to cool atoms to near the opposite of the light speed’s exponential barrier, the asymptotic, exponential barrier of near Zero Kelvin.  It takes, as it does to approach light speed, more and more time, energy, expense & highly developed and efficient methods, such as we find in our particle accelerators, in order to create the very low cryogenic temps which can create Einstein/Bose condensates.  The lowest possible quantum level of energy. So here was Einstein once again exploring the very lowest of energy states, as he had explored the normal energy states of Brownian motion & also those highest possible energy states, near light speed.  & describing the characteristics &  events seen at such ranges of energies from the very high, to medium, to the very lowest.  & it also turned out to explain superfluidity of liquid helium. A Rather remarkable and unexpected outcome. But fruitful as good models must be.
.
Those experimental solutions & confirmations of B-E states were first produced about 70 years later by Cornell and Wieman, using some rather expensive and energy intensive methods to create ultra low temperatures.  How did Bose and Einstein know they were right?  What thought experiments did they process to realize that their methods were the best?  No one knows, and that is the magic of Einstein and Bose. & what we will further explore here.
.
Einstein stated that compound interest was the greatest force in the universe. Let’s explore that to explain further from the standpoint of astronomical history, and then go into gravitational waves work, as a seguing of his subtleties.
.
Taking gravity, it’s least energy. Every single mass which exists has gravity. The larger masses have greater gravity, which can reach out at greater and greater distances than smaller masses. Thus, we have an Interesting case. And when smaller masses are captured by larger masses they fall into it, releasing energy. The energy out from a gravitational field around a mass creates this least energy fall. As it falls, it gives up energy, finally crashing on a surface, and coming to an end of its motion.
.
Avalanches show this in short. The mass of rocks and snow, esp. are higher in the mountains. And then something, some landing snowflake, or dislodged rock pushes the snow down a bit, and that more and more moves downhill to the irresistible force of gravity. & so it grows, exponentially, creating a massive rock and snow avalanche so often seen in winter. Visually, do a processing of this event. Cartoon in each of our “Mind’s Eye” this process. The mass of snow begins falling, faster and faster, releasing more and more energy, becoming larger and larger, and then at the bottom of the hill, it slows, pushing a huge amount of air in front of it, and causing all sorts of damage to anything in its path. And then finally comes, but not to a complete rest, and relatively slowly settling and falling here and there. Over some of hours to days, or longer.
.
Thus what we have is an exponential growth of falling mass into a gravitational field, which follows a least energy path. That is it’s thermodynamics and gravity combined. The one an explanation for the other.  and further, the fall of the avalanche starts  very tiny, grows very quickly & then tapers off at the bottom. That is best described ideally as an S curve.
.
Now we consider Whitehead’s process thinking descriptions, to show this S-curve and how it’s created by descriptions of events of all sorts, too. Whitehead’s “Almost Anything which jogs us out of our current abstractions is a good thing”. That’s the beginning point.
.
Or as Jefferson stated along those same lines, “I hold that a little rebellion now and then to be a good thing!!!  Both create improvements and scientific and progress in many other fields.
.
The next is what he stated along similar lines. The society (or group within a society), which cannot break out of its current abstractions, after a limited period of growth, is doomed to stagnation.
.
But if we look at what Whitehead stated, a limited period of growth, we see the exponential growth of an S-curve there & as it tapers off, thus we see the top of the S-curve, too.  This is how mathematics is creatively applied to verbal descriptions of noticed, notable, observed events in existence. This is the source of mathematically creativity at its best, being used to more precisely through Einsteinian epistemological restraints, to measure and then describe events. The verbal, visual cartooning of the Mind’s Eye of the avalanche is quite the same as an S-curve, is it not? And this comparison processing between Whitehead, a gravitational field effects which creates the growing planets and stars, is quite an S-curve as well.
.
It starts out small, and then grows larger and larger, until at last, most of the mass of the solar system is cleared out and the remaining masses continue growing, esp. if asteroidal orbiting bodies are present, goes on and on, but more slowly over time. Thus the top of the s-curve of accretion of matter into the sun, and the planets/moons around it.  The universal S-curve of growth, exponential, f/b the slow down peak of the S-curve. The avalanche is simply an upside down S-curve, with high energy at the top, and lower, comparatively, energy at the bottom.
.
And this is how gravitational fields of larger & larger collecting masses of bodies create the stars, & their companion stars and planets, as about 1/2 of stellar systems are multiple star systems of 2 and more stars associated gravitationally.
.
So the smaller masses become the larger where there is enough mass. & then become stars, and those stars collect into a larger, and larger mass. & that in the long run makes up a galaxy, which can collide and interact with other masses of smaller galaxies, growing and growing on, a nearly unlimited series of S-curves.
.
The galaxies then get larger and larger, and then they become local galactic clusters such as ours. As the local galactic clusters become larger & larger, and associate with the Abel group, or our own group super cluster in the Virgo region. Thus the entire universe is seen as a mass of collecting, gravitationally bound and growing structures. Exponential, compound interest growth occurring every where! The grand structure of our universe based upon the most powerful force in the universe, gravity, which grows by compound interest, does it not?
.
That’s precisely what Einstein meant, His subtleties when he stated that compound interest was the greatest force in the universe. Simple,, elegant, universally applicable and observed, in all spaces and times we can so far view. Simple, elegant, fruitful, and deep. So very much Einsteinian, is not?
.
About 1800 La Place, a great French astronomer. noted that the solar system was rotating in all the same directions, the planets, their moons & asteroids, pretty much the same direction from the north of our planet on the plane of the ecliptic, as seen from above, from West to east. The planets all orbited the sun this same way, and the moons as well.  & they all rotate on their axes the same direction, as their moons were pretty much orbited all the same, except for Neptune’s moon.
.
Why was this so? La Place postulated that our solar system arose, visualized using processing thinking, cartooning, or dreaming as we call it in sleep, as a spinning disc of mass, that as it condensed, drew in more and more surrounding gas and dust, and became a solar system. He had no way of proving that was so, either. But he knew it was likely. Occam’s “reality sieve” Razor again, we see. It made the most “sense”. But what happened next?
.
Let us extend this model by a more recent example, to show yet again this kind of processing of masses and events in our universe.  When the Hubble was turned towards some of the nearby nebulae in our own Orion spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy it found some very interesting clots of matter, some partial light years across. Those knots of matter were rotating, and when many scores of them were seen, they were shown, eventually in many cases, to result in the creating of enough central mass to start hydrogen fusion, which meant those became stars. And they found more and more of those rotating, spinning discs of gas. Each of them confirming, many times over, La Place’ 200 years old model!!!
.
And by now enough has been seen, from the clots of dusty matter glowing only by nearby starlight, which became suns, and the light cleared out the dust, exposing the dusty remains of each planet’s dusty trailing of gases, as the starlight pushed out the remaining dust and was cleared by gravitational collecting. Again, visual thinking. process thinking of Whitehead.
.
How long did this confirmation take?  About 200 years. How long should we entertain hypotheses? If they are least energy and simple, for about 200 years, or so. Truly subtle are the ways.
.
But we are not done yet, but well along in our field trip, peripatetic exploration of the subtleties of our universe of events in existence.
.
The LIGO  experiments much more recently, at last after 100 years of seeking confirmation of Einstein’s gravity waves, finally detected them. The second LIGO in Europe has also confirmed such events in tandem with the North Am LIGO. This took over 100 years to confirm Einstein’s model of gravitational waves existing. not 200 as with La Place’s model.
.
Einstein wanted to know the “mind of God”. to some extent he succeeded with relativity, exploring the behaviors of fermions at near light speed, Brownian movement at normal ambient temps; and fermions at ultra low temps, namely, Bose-Einstein condensates.
.
Recently, gravitational waves were found, but at great cost and time, and largely confirmed by the two operating LIGO systems, which have confirmed empirically and are very likely the case, events of distant gravitational wave creations from the coalescences of pairs of  black holes, and more recently a pair of of neutron stars.
.
But how did Einstein confirm all of this to his satisfaction, 4 generations ago? How did he KNOW that Bose/Einstein condensates were real and likely. How did he know his work on Brownian movement was right without empirical, experimental testing? How did he KNOW that gravity waves existed?
.
In order to solve that we must learn to know the Mind of Einstein, surely a much more realistic and possible to solve problem, than that of God’s mind.  And it can be understood, that he probably had ways of empirical testing via “thought experiments” as pointed out in Sagan’s “Cosmos”. That is to say, Einstein had such a very good reality sieve set for processing events, that he could test each of those hypotheses and know that they were very likely the case, before empirical, experimental testing confirmed them.
.
What was the nature of his confirming mental processes and testing? This is possible to know by using present day clinical neuroscientific models of how we model and understand events in existence. Which Einstein himself stated in “Physics and Reality”, published 1936.  “Our understanding of events is based upon finding relationships among events (by comparison processes), and visual thinking.” That is Whiteheadian “process thinking”.
.
IOW, Einstein was a very good visual thinker. He’d not have any trouble seeing plate tectonics for what it was, and would be able to cartoon it in his mind. & we know, not accidently, he was a very fine violinist. And we know that those who cane play a musical instrument very well, are very likely to have Double the spatial relationship skills and abilities of those without fine musical skills. Couple that with his very quick mind, which as a patent office examiner of new devices, he could at once see how the device to be patented worked. And then with those rapid, professional skills, have enough time left over each day to work on his relativity models, which he published while working in a Swiss patent office.
.
He worked in the Swiss patent office, and was very, very good at looking at designs, turning them around in his head and then figuring out how and if they worked as described. and thus could be patented. It’s told that he was so good at that, he could finish a day’s work by noon and then spend the rest of his time working on his physical models, which he published while working at the patent office.
.
Now we also know that Einstein played a good violin, too. And we know clinically, that those persons who can play a musical instrument well, have about double the spatial abilities of those who don’t play. And that’s the Einsteinian edge, once again. It’s how he did his magic. Accurate, clear thought experiments from his outstanding spatial visualizing skills.
.
So there it largely is. He was able, using mental visualizing (not at all that much different from dreaming), to see how, that is do a thought experiment, about how events in existence worked. & because he had new and key insights into how events very likely must be.  That was how he found the relationships, most notably between the Fitzgerald-Lorentz equations, which were NOT, as they were said to be, what happened to fermions if there was not ether, but what happened to fermions at closer and closer approaches to light speed, as measured by set, relatively fixed, stable measuring standards. That is the comparison process of relativity, that same comparison process which lies at the basic process which uses measuring scales to create data of numerical values. And also applies to, in the same way, verbal descriptive standards to create data and recognize events, as well. Thus  description and measuring are tied together by comparison processing of two related types, description by words, & numericity and measuring, that is mathematics.
So, we can now see the background of how he was able to come up with his models. He could determine relationships among  events, which gave greater understanding, and then do thought experiments to TEST in a number of ways, if those models were correct and realistic.
.
In the same ways as Darwin  found the closely related finches on the Galapagos islands, relatively isolated archipelagos, so then Wallace found the same radiation and creations of many of the species on the isolated isles of Indonesia.
Thus we can peer into Einstein’s mind and know how he did his phenomenally creative work by using his own statements, combined with Least energy, comparison process models of mental functioning. And that was how he found his relativity, what it’s like to ride on a photon, and how being in an accelerating frame of reference is very similar to being in a gravitation field. Comparing those two sets of thought experiments, was how he realized that gravitational waves existed, because gravity had to be propagated at light speed, more or less.
.
&  that is exactly what the great Dutch scientist, Huygens, found with the moons of Jupiter 3 centuries before. A good method to measure the speed of light, by visualizing the moons of Jupiter lay in itself a way to calculate light speed.
.
For high level thinking Einstein is one of the best. He could see patterns and confirm them with his methods, and even today, 100 years later, the LIGO’s, two of them, have confirmed existence of his great subtlety, the gravity waves, altho it took vast amounts of money and organizations on two continents to see and detect them, but they are confirmed.
.
This confirming ability of Einstein to KNOW that gravity waves existed. To know that gravitational fields bent light, and would create gravity lenses, too, is remarkable. The Hubble Telescope’s large number of intergalactic wide field images have confirmed this without limit. & no less remarkable than his exploration of the lowest end of the fermion complex curve of absolute zero, or as close to zero K as we could get, about 100 years after He and Bose found it. How did he know? And that is what we intend to show how he confirmed most all of this.
.
In the examples of Einstein’s mind working we see gedanken experiments, or visual thinking going on which is highly realistic, efficient and applicable. IOW, his brain was modelling the universe of events and processes with very high fidelity. He was an intrinsically great visual processor & intuitive neuroscientist. He knew, in short more about how the mind could work than his contemporaries and we are just now realizing that.
.
For instance, he insisted that as above, “We must put the personal (emotional thinking) aside in order to do good physics.” This was a great truth. We cannot emotionally process information very well. For instance we cannot  decide we like or dislike PCN, or vaccines, as that is not relevant to whether they work and how well, or not. He knew this and “how to put the personal aside” in order to do good physics. IOW, he concentrated on cortical processing, using the emotions only to drive his needs to “understand the mind of God”. and he did to some extent. Set the bar high when Einstein and you can succeed to some extent. & because information processing is done in the cortical columns, his were very well developed. The emotions lie in deeper structures, & altho they can at times over-ride the cortex, esp. in times of great stress and emotional duress, most of the time the cortex closely controls and monitors the emotions. This is an essential part of our social controls and morals, as well.
.
Freud also discussed this in his concepts of the ego and Id getting in the way of normal, good critical thinking & decision making.
.
As has been stated before it was his visualization of events, of processes, or process thinking to quote Whitehead, which did the work. A picture or image is worth 1000 words. IOW, we can use a visual image, cartoon that and sidestep using words, to grasp the larger picture of what’s going on. Our brains are visual, very much so. and this is proven here, as well by an early 20th C. British neuroanatomist:
.
How most all the higher brain and deep structures are organized around the visual system.
.
.
We are thus very visual creatures. Our visual fields overlap and create by parallax the ability to more accurately & quickly judge distances. Most species, other than the great apes, do not have this visual capability by any means. All of this innate in our brains/minds and visual systems.
.

This shows the human edge. We don’t use words to process information, necessarily, but visual processing of how things can look when we design new instruments, or create new devices/tools. We design them in our heads, and then put that on paper & make it real. Einstein’s father was a mechanical engineer, and his son inherited the familial traits to do so, as well. Einstein worked for a number of years in the Swiss Patent Office, doing that daily & entirely. Mostly all looking at designs and devices to see if they worked and were patentable. That was massive visual processing at least. He was an excellent violinist and it’s known that those who play well any musical instrument esp. one as difficult as the piano or violin, double their spatial abilities to manipulate events in space and time compared to those without such musical skills. That’s yet another of Einstein’s subtleties.

.
Visual processing of information has a logic all its own, not necessarily verbal, mathematical or even logical, for that matter. But it does use comparison processing to do that magic.
.
How this is all done is seen by comparing Edison’s to Tesla’s methods. Both work, but the latter cut the Gordian Knots of Complexity and simplified down the whole problem. That’s also how Einstein did his work. His intuitive sense of comparison processing, visual processing, & least energy processing was at work. For instance, in order to create an electric light Edison had to test over 900 materials by brute force, over 2 year’s work,to find those which would make a durable light filament. We can see his mind at work during this creative sets of actions.
.
But Tesla was skilled in physics, and knew a simple, single fact. That of refractory materials resistant to heat, that is, which would resist breaking down & melting when glowing white hot. & thus he’d know that Carbon, which was what Edison eventually found successfully, altho delicate, has one of the highest possible refractory values of any known element, which can conduct electricity. But Mo, W, Re and some others are also very highly refractory, as well. But only about 6 need to be tested, NOT 900!!!  And that’s the Edge of Tesla. His high level concepts could cut the Knot of Complexity, & sorted very quickly to the key concept which would have led within 2 weeks to the electric light filament. As his very fine mind solved many other such problems in the same way. That was in part, Tesla’s great genius.
.
Now how about Einstein? He believed in keeping his sources secret. Hide your sources, he said, to eliminate competition and indeed in all of his notes one rarely finds ANY references to other’s work. He kept his sources secret. And kept his competition in the dark.
.
Let’s apply to confirm it, this visualizing method to Charles Darwin on the Galapagos archipelago. He saw the many finches there, very similar to each other, the raw materials simplified for evolution, to a single kind of visual appearances of finches. Very closely related due to appearances. And if, supposing as his “Mind’s Eye” (Dr. Hofstadter) did, saw that a single species of original finches likely created the entire group of finches there. & so he did very very well, indeed. & continued for most of his life’s work before and after “The Origin…” to confirm and extend the model of evolution. And succeeded.
.
Consider that EXACTLY the same visualization of processes was seen 25 years later by Russell Wallace in the Indonesian archipelago where he found, again and again, on many islands and with multiple related plants and animals, confirming his observations, that species modified into other species, gradually. Which he could also see, visualize and view  them in most of their major details.
.
Compare this to Einstein’s gedanken visualizations. He could see that standing in an accelerating reference frame, was exactly (but not quite, in fact), the same as being in a gravitational field. & this kind of visualizing, was the case behind much of his relativity work. Also, what was it like to ride on a photon? Or what was it like to see events if we accelerated in to very fast speeds, that the light in front of us, would blue shift, and the light behind, red shift.. Again, visualization, process thinking using images, to cut the Gordian Knot of complexities and very greatly shorten the sorting processes to solving problems. Sagan shows Einstein doing this as well in his fine, insightful “Cosmos” series.
.
Let us continue in this same frame of thinking by observing the Plate Tectonics Model in geology which has created a paradigm for understanding the surface features of our planet, & which is a very great epistemological change from most all previous models of geology. In it, we Cartoon in our minds to see the plates moving against each other. and it’s also VERY much a complex system thinking as well. It cannot be mathematized, but ONLY described by words. & then via images, we “see” how earth’s surface moves. It cannot be easily predicted into the future, only seen & inferred by what has happened in the past.  & that again, shows the probabilistic nature of complex systems. They are not deterministic, but stochastic, probabilities like the weather forecasts, yet another widely described, studied and recorded complex system of note. or like probabilities in the stochastic model of QM, for that matter.
.
Thus we see the mind of Einstein at work again. What happens at linear light speed? The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations take on an entirely new & more real meaning. and he first “saw” this by his methods, too.
.
And then yet another example. the solutions to complicated particle interactions and processes, such as the breakdown or creation of the neutron from the proton & electron.
.
As a sidelight, Einstein stated that “Subtle are the ways of the Lord God”, referring to the OT source. And his is yet another example of it, of the very many he and others found. Which confirms the scientific validity of his saying. When the neutron breaks down, it produces a proton and an electron. But the deep subtlety is that the energies and masses of the Neutron versus those of the Proton and Electron do NOT match. There is an energy/mass disparity. A cognitive dissonance of Leon Festinger. & from such disparities, which Einstein was also good at seeing, came an astonishing advance in physics. And the subtlety is the neutrino, not quite massless, but almost, and with enormous energies at times, too. So it was missed and then finally found. The tiniest most impossible to easily measure particle, about which we are still learning its amazing subtleties, quite like  Einstein noted & saw many other instances of. Thus confirmations without much limit.
.
Feynman figured out how to “see” these neutron to proton/electron productions via his very concise & what are now called Feynman diagrams. Instead of solving all those very complicated equations which used to take 2 weeks of work to laboriously calculate. His diagrams worked within a few minutes. Again, his magic was visualization and HOW to solve the unmanageable equations, which we solve nowadays by computers, within a few minutes, too. But this is how it’s done. NOT magic, but the human edge, Einstein’s edge, to visualize complicated processes which words and math cannot handle very fast or well. But yet our visual cortices, working in tandem with the frontal areas, can do so very, very easily & quickly.,
.
That’s how it works. That’s how the mind  of Einstein & Feynman worked. Both sought to understand the universe around them. This drove their work, consistently. They were both sorting, thinking, testing, checking and trying to find answers to their major questions. Einstein died in bed still doing his work, very likely, in the last days of his life. That’s how Tesla’s mind and that of the many great persons, such as Mendeleev’s mind worked: to visually diagram the elements, isotopes & atoms into a concise, visual chart, the Periodic table by seeing the similarities among the noble gases, the alkali metals, the ferrous metals, the halogens, etc. That visualization is the human edge to understanding. and the above examples confirm this beautifully and repeatedly with events in existence as well. And those are the keys to understanding Einstein’s brain structures as well.
.
 It thus took Einstein some time to confirm what was to be known. And that gravity waves must exist and travel as waves, as does light.
And that the nature of fermions at very, very energies, as compared to fermions at ambient temps, and the similar exponential barriers of near light speed, and near Zero Kelvin, neither of which can be Reached by normal accelerations and decelerations, either. & thus he explored the entire double curves of light speed and zero kelvin; and found that characteristics likely there by thought experiments, which showed by his unique least energy, efficient, relativistic, comparison processing of those events.  & who has put this together, that he explored the whole ranges of speeds, Heats, & energies of the fermions, methodically and deliberately?
.
That’s how creativity is created. That’s how understanding is created. And that in a nutshell is how his intuitive neuroscientific understandings of how brain worked, lay at the basis of his immensely gifted creativities, which even to this day are being proven. & confirmed without limit, such as the bending of photons by a high gravitational fields (gravitational lensing) are also confirmed. Which he knew could be found, but stated that since the distances were so great it’d be hard to test. Said that an intervening galaxy in line of site with the erath and the interposed galaxy, by visualizing this state of affairs. Again, spatial, visualizing, thought experimenting!!!  But it was the case, & he knew it was. So his remarkable arcs and Einstein crosses litter the vast distances encompassed by the Hubble’s extraordinary mirror and lens systems. Amazingly, but true that It takes optical lenses to detect gravitational lenses and lensing!!!!
.
Indeed, subtle are the ways of the Lord, and he is not mean, but gives us, as Einstein said, indeed MANY ways of confirming those subtleties, which in the case of “spookie action” at a distance, where his mistake was highly fruitful, and with Bose-Einstein condensates, AND gravitational waves, too, are very likely the case.
That is peering into the mind of Einstein made possible by a more modern effective and efficient least energy, comparison processing analysis.
.
When is a mistake NOT a mistake? When Einstein makes it. & we learn as much, paradoxically, from his mistakes as we do from his successes.
.
Those characteristics & methods shown above, are something of how the Mind of Einstein worked, to show us even to this very day, how the Mind of God, at least in part, works.  And his immense successes at doing so, as well.
.
The deeper, clinically significant, high intuitive insights of Einstein, which largely drove his scientific creativity will be dealt with in more depth in a future article.
.
Einstein created his own continuum, of the energies of fermions and then explored that, light speed changed, Brownian movement, and then Bose-Einstein condensates.
Here is the “Emotional Continuum”, and then can be converted to an hierarchy for better descriptions and more completeness!
.
.
But how did Einstein confirm all of these findings from relativity, to BE condensates and gravity waves plus light bending?  This is the deep question which must be answered.
.
This is an insight into how confirmability in the sciences works:
.
.
How this can be done wtih respectg to the Depths within Depths detection of instantaneity or one of the forms of eternity, demanded by QM is a good question. And here’s a beginning of how we can prove it’s real and detect it as well. Apply the above guides and past insights.
.
For instance in Depth within Depths we see an underlying space created by process thinking. If gravity is diminished time speeds up. If gravity almost completely disappears, compared to a site such as the earth, time increases in speed without limit and processes become instant, and no processes occur, either. That’s yet another way it can be seen to be true.
.
The other is that instantaneity is required by QM to work. That’s a second. The time riding on a light wave appears to the photon relative to the events around it to be instantaneous. All processes are instant. Or time simply stops, as well.
.
This is more elaborated here and there are likely many other examples, including the entanglement instantaneity also found to be real and existing, and confirmed.
.
Please peruse down about 40% of the article to this phrase:
.
“And this is the most likely the simplest answer:….  “
.
First, how much information can be found using words to describe a set series of events?  Some, but not a very great deal. Because, as it well known, a Picture is worth 1000 words.
.
Now, compare that photo, or image to the actual events those are taken from? Which has the most information, the image, or the actual events,themselves? Again, we see the comparison shows us the actual events have almost unlimited details, at many levels of visual, hearing, touching, and so forth
.
And what of human imagination and visualizations compared to actual events?
.
That is the key question here and relates closely to how Einstein’s mind worked.
.
Here we go. Because the use of words and maths are pretty much different forms of verbal descriptions versus measuring, but allied by both being outputs of the left language centers, they are related by comparison processes. Whereas ROY G BIV gives colours and descriptions, creating data; measuring the actual wavelengths, gives frequenies data, but not necessarily bright/dark & the unlimited shades of grays between white and black.
.
Thus visualization is a very, very important tool in thinking about the gedanken experiments, the thought experiments of Einstein, which were not only deep, but realistic, empirically accurate as well.
.
Now, we take that point deeper and further looking into Einstein’s mind and mental processes.
.
The amount of information in verbal descriptions is far, far less than that of photographs of same. And the paintings also have less data than a photograph, which is why paintings greatly declined after photography because very, very reliable and easy and cheap to do.  Human drawings are almost every time far, far less detail, viz., they have far less information in them than do photographic images. We can easily discern the differences by comparison with CGI faces and real human faces.
.
Thus we have this point:  words cannot describe as well as images, and they do not!!. Nor does math, of what value is our mental imaging related & compared to words/maths and their descriptions and measurements, relatively?
.
It’s clear that mental imaging of a very high degree is MUCH more able to handle vaster amounts of data using such accurate as possible visualizing methods. Here we once again recall process thinking of Whitehead, which must bear upon Einstein’s imagination & visualizations, his gedanken experiments, which have been repeatedly been shown to summarize, explain and related to the basis of his work. IOW, he was NOT using verbal descriptions alone, nor math, but actual, mental cartooning, such as we see in dreams, that is visual process thinking.
.
That, very clearly is a much much higher level of handling & processing information of a very great detail and volumes.  and that is the important insight into how Einstein worked at first. He did not like much math,and preferred to thinking visualizations, instead of mere words, too.
.
Let us digress for a time to plate tectonics. Those are complex system cartooning and images of how the continents have drifted over the 100’s of megayears of time. They easily and clearly visualize for us how the continents have moved over time, relative to each other. Thus, we are looking at a complex systems  being made more real by cartooning, which most everyone familiar with plate tectonics has seen.
.
Ecologies and biological systems are are also complex systems, and that is very obvious at once, once we grasp the fullest applicabilities, imports and characteristics of complex systems and how we think about them.
.
Further plate tectonics is complex system. It cannot be easily predicted where those parts of continents and Continents will go as the thing is a system of interactions of the plates. and is thus complex system
.
In the same ways, therefore, Einstein’s complex system visualization of events in existence ALSO is able to summarize and use a very great deal of visualization of data & details, more so than either verbal descriptions, or math/measurement, and thus is able to more realistically portray events.
.
Let us once again, to confirm the value of this approach to Darwin and Wallace. And we can easily show how they could process image what was happening to a series of species, 1000’s of miles away from each other; that a single species would get established on a remote isle & then begin to speciate into the various, but similar forms. And indeed in terms of Darwin’s finches, and other events he saw, he concluded that. & then Wallace in a very similar system of the many isolated isles of the Indonesian archipelago, he saw the same patterns, of simple forms of life, speciating, again and again, in very similar forms. Which also drove evolution.
,
That is the essence of visual processing, of visual cartooning akin to dreaming, as well, which can drive our most creative persons.
,
And one more to confirm this, not neglecting the many instances used by Einstein to show what he was doing. When Feynman was solving his QM equations, it took some weeks to do the computations. however, he found a visual, diagrammatic way to write out those outcomes, briefly and visually, the Feynman diagrams!!! And these were very efficient to guiding him as to which outcomes were realistic and which were not. Even today, those are used, even tho the equations can be now quickly solved with efficient computer programs. Thus we see the minds of the great creative scientific leaders of our times, using virtually the SAME visualizations of processes, in a very realistic, empirical way to better understand what’s going on, and to short cut and cut through the complexities of the nature of space/time and gravity, evolutionary processes, and QM processes as well, such as the decay of neutrons into e-, p+, and an anti neutrino.
.
All of this magic, as it were, is visually, process thinking in a very empirical way, which led to those deep and creative insights. And very likely that is the human edge, as well. Why do we dream? Kekule saw the source of his finding that benzene was a ring, by a metaphorical dream about the snake which, like Ouroboros, ate its tali and became a RING, just like benzene. Visual thinking again!!
.
And those many examples confirm and are our greatest and important insights into how the Mind of Einstein worked.
.
Then we must therefore ask ourselves about the structure of his brain, which did those functions and we find Einstein’s frontal lobe on the R, being developed into 4, instead of the usual 3 major gyri. And that the lateral 4th gyrus, was very, very near to the FFA, the frontal lobe which does visualize, ID and recognize human faces!!!
.
Thus we now know where to look to see in humans who are doing visualization thinking. It will highlight the visual system, the parietal areas, and the Right lateral, inferior frontal brain areas when those processes are ongoing, very clearly.
.
Ask persons to do the visualization which show the radiation of the species on isolated isles to the many species. Ask them how to visualize the plate tectonic movements, which are complex system like much of Einstein thinking. and ask them all of the other unlimited visualizations of empirical events which our brains are capable of, both during sleep & waking, too.
.
Those are the structure/function relationships relevant to how Einstein’s brain/mind worked and that of  other persons, as well.
.
Detected the disparities by CP, then investigated, and by sorting thru possibilities by Comparison Processing, found better and better solutions.
.
THEN, by his visualizing, thinking processes, SAW the confirmations, plural, which meant his model was correct. The ability to create a good reality sieve system, and set of methods of confirmation, made it clear to him his Gravity waves, his photoelectric effect, his relativity both special and general, and his Bose-Einstein work was all correct, as well.
.
He did similar confirms for the bending of light, as was worked out before him, and he was able to integrate that and include it in his relativity work. & then Eddington found a way to test & confirm it by recording the positions of stars near to where the sun would be in the coming solar eclipse in Madagascar, and then during the solar  COMPARED the positions of those stars without the sun to where they were WHEN those interstellar photons would pass closely thru the sun’s gravitational fields.  & by THAT comparison disparity, SHOWED the 1.9-2.0 arc second discrepancy, which proved Einsteins model was correct.  & that this was a great subtlety which would have been missed, but for Einstein’s light bending work. But would have to be explained when the Hubble Telescope found those by the unlimited numbers!!!
.
& in addition, this was confirmed by repeating evidence done a few years later, and THAT made Einstein a world figure in physics, which his past work had laid the groundwork for.
.
The confirmations he was able to visualize by thinking using good reality sieves, were what he was sure about, in most all respects.
.
And that was some of the major ways of how he did it, in short.
.