interplay between ways of transmitting messages

This is an answer to Jerry's questions regarding my model of communicative messages transmission and the interaction between sequences and mixtures.
Could you say more about what you mean by "pre-logical"? I do not understand this usage at all.
In psychologic terms: whatever is experienced by the older regions of the brain than the cortex is pre-logical. In physical terms: what is there without me being able to deny its existence (for a newborn: breast, light, Sun, gravity, solid things, etc.) Logic is produced in the cortex. The subcortically registered impressions constitute the set of pre-logical sensations. What you run into and causes pain irrespective of what you think about it is pre-logical. (In Wittgenstein terms: this is what logic is embedded in.)
Your response suggests that "pre-logical" is related to brain anatomical structures. I would suggest that this is a confusing usage of the sense of "pre" as "before"; what is implied is a hierarchical organization of mental function. In this sense, biochemical functions of brain are also "pre-logical", nicht wahr?

Yes, you got it. Biochemical processes of the brain are pre-logical. Electrical processes of the brain are those we refer to as we talk about numbers. If we talk about biochemical processes we use the terms "feelings", "emotions", "intuitions" and the like. Saying the sentence "I feel hungry although I have eaten a short while ago a nourishing meal" you will recognise the difference between pre-logical (emotional, visceral, material) and logical (correct, predictable, Newtonian, Euclidean) mental entities. If we talk about the interlock between chemical and electrical representations of/within the system, we use terms like "dream" and "phantasy". If we talk about the purely electrical representations of the interplay, we may use termns like "thought", "insight", "evidence", "hard logic" and the like ("consciousness" to start with).
Yes, indeed I do hold that organisms with no nervous systems evolved prior to organisms with a nervous system. Thus I am in concordance with received wisdom by stating that the subcortical systems of the brain are phylogenetically prior to the evolvement of the cortex. Cf. also the terms "subcortical" and "archetypical".
Thank you for approaching the complicated matter of how the duality between biochemical and electrical processes in the brain functions. You will come to the deep insight that biochemical processes are commutative (are a cross-section of the time, with many differing qualities) while electrical processes are sequential (come one after the other where the distance - as counted in msec - between uniform bursts is what counts). Thereby you have posed the question: how many concurrent and how many sequential states of a set exist? In case you are interested in a further discussion of this logical problem, detailing the interplay between surrounding, pre-logical (cross-sectional, commutative, many qualities) and surrounded, logical (sequential, longitudinal, one uniform logical marker), please refer to my papers.
Thank you for sharing your pre-logical feelings (certainly visceral) that you are sceptical about logical problems.

Your second point of non-understanding is as follows:
When you write, A: The chemical systems are not irregular. I have no idea what you are seeking to communicate. Perhaps you have an example in mind? Hopefully, in discussing the example, you will relate it to biochemical dynamics as this is the source of biological communication.
Example cited from Zen Flesh Zen Bones (A. Reps, Ed.)
7th patriarch happens by as two monks discuss a flag moving in the wind. Monk A says: flag is moving. Monk B says: wind is moving. Patriarch says: mind is moving.
Discussing the example:
Let me put straight that biological communication uses the interplay between chemical and electrical ways of storing the info (Neither of them on its own.). Like: "cinema" = "picture" + "music". "Biochemical information" = "one /timely sequenced/ pattern of electrical bursts, pointing out one realisation of many possibilities" + "one /contemporary/ biochemical composition, pointing out one realisation of many possibilities".
It is important to keep in mind that
a) there are many different electrical patterns possible ;
b) there are many different biochemical compositions possible ;
c) number under a) # number under b) ;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d) therefore sometimes pattern of electrical discharges regulates chemical composition and sometimes chemical composition regulates pattern of electrical discharges.
This interplay is what I try to talk about. (Somewhat abstracted I say "sequences" and "commutative states" but I hope people will still grasp it.)

Your next question:
More generally, could you provide an example of representing a chemical molecule in terms of statistical concepts as you see the relations? More precisely, an exact accounting of the components of a molecule must be related to one another.
Let us go back to the concept of "how many messages per object-carrying-message". You know what is an object (a piece of paper, a stone, a bead in a necklace, etc.) You know what is a symbol. (I wont detail you what is a symbol). You put distinguishable symbol on distinguishable object. You get message. You count how many messages you can transmit by using n objects.
Once you have this you look how you have counted. I bet a large amount of money with you that you have invariably used SEQUENTIAL arrangements.
Then you restart experiment and put all objects you use for transmittig messages into one bag. No sequence. All at once. Receiver no know which first which second. Receiver still distinguish one different arrangement of symbols from another different arrangement of symbols. Receiver no worry which symbol. Distinct message count no distinct symbol count. All object at once.
You count how many messages.
You compare transmission efficiency between sequential and commutative method of transmitting message.
You find one transmit more message if beads all in one sack than beads one after other on necklace if beads number between 32 and 97. Best method use 66.
Then you count states of sets you wanna call supernumerary states of sets. (Messages you can't picture onto N as they are more than N has places.)
You divide this number by number of objects employed. You make average.
Then you have mass of pre-logical entity, if you take average number of supernumerary states of sets per one object. Of these may come many together. You think this good picture of/for atomic structure.

I cannot simplify it more. Please try to follow the step-by-step instructions on how to send messages communicatively.
1) take 5 pieces of white paper
2) put on 3 of them a symbol (regardless which symbol)
3) put on 1 of those with a symbol on it and on 1 of those with no symbol on a second symbol. No matter what kind. You have message stack A. Stack A's description is 5 = (1+ 1 + [1 ) + 1] + 1
4) prepare different stack of 5 pieces of white paper. Call this stack B.
5) put on 1 of these a symbol. No matter which kind.
6) put on a second of those with no symbol yet (stack B) a different symbol.
7) put on a third of stack B a symbol.
8) put on a fourth of stack B a symbol. Stack B's description is 5 = (1) + (1) + (1 ) + (1) + 1
9) ask a child if he can distinguish stack A from stack B.
10) change the ontology of the symbols between A and B into C and D or among each other.
11) ask the child again.
12) repeat with other symbols and other children and other numbers of paper and other structures.
13) write up what you find out about communicative transmission of messages.
14) discuss results with people interested in information theory.
I look forward your results. I make advise on next step.
Karl
Received on Fri Jun 14 13:08:56 2002