Dear All on this list,
I have recently been looking at mental relativity. There is something I am not clear about with this article :
Is the conscious mind deductive for LB (reasoning and reason) and inductive for the RB (feeling and emotion)? and then the subsonscious mind inductive for LB (desirability) and deductive for RB (logic)?
Also I'm confused by this article which sequence the LB and RB go with regards to deductive and inductive thinking. In the article its says the RB measures Ability using deduction (comparing K1 with K2) but then goes on to say it used induction to measure Ability ??
Also is abilty rates the potential risk, how come it can be measured using induction, when Deductive thinking is the process of comparing experience to observation to determine risk??
Many thanks for answering these queries in advanced for clearing my confusion here?
I have pasted below what appear to be contradicitions :
As an equation from the internal perspective, Thought diminished by Knowledge equals Desire: t / k = d.
The Left mind will compare the observation (Thought 1) to existing Thought 2 to determine Desire (deduction), and compare existing Knowledge to altered Knowledge to determine Ability (induction).
Desire is a comparison between to conditions of Thought, before and after an observation. Desire rates the potential increase of Knowledge by determining how familiar we are with the portions we have experienced before.
1. Observation viewed as Thought1.
2. Knowledge1 prior to filtering of Observation (Thought1).
3. New Thought2 the result of the decay of Knowledge1 after stimulation by Observation (Thought1).
4. New Knowledge2 the result of Knowledge1 after stimulation by Observation (Thought1).
5. Deduction as the process of reducing the unknown quantities from Thought1, resulting in filtered Thought2.
6. Induction (after deduction) as the process of comparing the increase in known quantities between Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
7. Rating of Desire measured as the difference between Thought1 and Thought2.
8. Rating of Ability measured as the difference between Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
As an equation from the internal perspective, Knowledge applied to Thought equals Ability: k * t = a.
The Right mind will compare observation (Knowledge 1) to existing Knowledge (Knowledge 2) to determine Ability (deduction), and compare existing Thought to altered Thought to determine Desire (induction).
Ability is a comparison between two states of Knowledge, before and after an observation. Ability rates the potential risk, by determining how much of an observation we have experienced before.
1. Observation viewed as Knowledge1.
2. Thought1 prior to stimulation by Observation (Knowledge1).
3. New Knowledge2 as the result of the filtering of Thought1 after stimulation by Observation (Knowledge1).
4. New Thought2 as the result of the decay of Knowledge2 after stimulation by Thought1 .
5. Induction as the process of comparing the increase in known quantities between Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
6. Deduction (after induction) as the process of reducing the unknown quantities from Thought1, resulting in filtered Thought2.
7. Rating of Ability measured as the difference between Knowledge1 and Knowledge2.
8. Rating of Desire measured as the difference between Thought1 and Thought2.
Deductive thinking is the process of comparing experience to observation to determine risk. The observation is matched to KNOWN cause & effect. It works well for immediate reactions, but is not at all useful for projecting new courses of action that have not been experienced.
Inductive thinking is the process of taking the known quantity from an observation and then finding all of the touch points that share part or all of the known quantity. This is best suited for projecting the potential of new and unexperienced alternative paths, but has no power to determine the risk of the paths.
Melanie Anne Phillips--Re: Mental Relativity #1
First of all, the book you downloaded was our first attempt to gather our initial development on Mental Relativity into one place. As such, there are bound to be a number of inconsistencies, as well as the inclusion of material that was later significantly revised.
In specific answer to your questions, while the nature of the conscious and subconscious minds of LB and RB individuals is essentially opposite one another, it is not a direct inverse, but rather more a 90 degree skew (speaking trigonometrically).
In fact, the whole concept of LB and RB was later replaced [by us] with the notion of Mental Sex, being male or female at a level below experience yet above genetic memory, and due specifically to doping of the brain with hormones before birth. This sets a bias toward one method of thinking or another, which although open to any kind of training or subconscious influence through experience, cannot in and of itself ever be undone. This bias, in fact, is actually a spectrum which tends to fall in a double bell curve with one kind favoring LB thinking in genetic males and the other favoring RB thinking in females. This moves the entire equation out of the digital or binary (or even quad) form, and tempers it with an analog component.
But, suffice it to say, that based on the material in the existing book, LB thinking favors deductive consciously and inductive subconsciously, and the reverse in RB. Still, I would say that in our current view, this is not strictly true, as there are two other forms of thinking as well: Reductive and Productive. I would suspect (though I haven't re-read the MR book to be sure) that a more accurate view would see LB as consciously deductive and subconsciously Productive, whereas in RB individuals, the conscious mind would be Reductive, and the subconscious Inductive.
Also keep in mind that (in a quad model) the mind (as per ongoing development of MR) is seen as having not just a conscious and subconscious, but also Memory and Preconscious, each of which will operate on one of the four Logics - Deductive, Inductive, Reductive, and Productive. The arrangement would be 90 degrees out of phase in RB. But in sleep, each of those four aspects of the mind would shift their logical associations in order to unwind and reset from the day's input, much as one might rotate crops. And I would further hypothesize that this rearrangment pattern would be different in LB and RB creating different relationships among the four aspects of mind between LB and RB in sleep than between them in wakefulness.
In regard to the inconsistency described in the measurement of Ability (K1 vs. K2) I would say that while it seems in fact to be inconsistent, I believe what we were trying to get at was that there is an inverse relationship between Ability and Risk, and that while Ability is determined by deduction, Risk is determined by induction. At least, that is what I would say about it now (just off the cuff, mind you).
I hope this is of some help to you. Hopefully, Chris and/or I will eventually prepare a more up to date description of the mechanisms of the model of Mental Relativity that will be more concise and more consistent with our ongoing development of the concepts over the years.
Melanie Anne Phillips
(Posted by Chris Huntley, Write Brothers)
heds22 Ability and risk #2
Thank you for responding with what you could at that current time. I agree the inclusion of Reduction and Production makes sense and is consistent with theory you have put together.
I'm still a little perplexed about the arrangment of Ability (K1 vs. K2) being determined by deduction as an inverse to Risk being determined by induction : when,
Ability rates the potential risk, by determining how much of an observation we have experienced before. Ability to do something can only be judged by comparing what we know to what we don't know. In that manner we can determine the risk involved in any given endeavor.
Deductive thinking is the process of comparing experience to observation to determine risk. The observation is matched to known cause and effect.
Inductive thinking is best suited for projecting the potential new and unexperienced alternative paths, but has no power to determine the risk of the paths.
When you refer to risk being determined by induction, are you referencing an inverse form of risk to the form of risk rated by ability and determined by deduction?
Chris Huntley Re: Ability and risk #3
I'm not really sure what your are purporting that we said, and what you are postulating on your own. Could you clarify which statements are those of ours that you take exception to, and which ones are your own alternative hypotheses? Also, it would help if you could specify the source of your information - an exact quote of what we said that your are questioning.
I'm a bit rusty on Mental Relativity (haven't dealt with it directly for several years). Your help clarifying your questions might help me make coherent answers.
Melanie Anne Phillips--Re: Ability and risk #4
Ability is the portion of an Observation that is familiar (of which there is existing Knowledge). At the most simple level, one could see an observation as a collection of elements and knowledge being the recollection of those specific elements one has seen before. But an observation is not just the element one encounters from a sensory perspective, but also the relationships among various groups of elements that create patterns. So, Ability is the portion of both the elements and patterns in an Observation that one has encountered before. The greater the familiarity, the greater the apparent Ability.
When one Observes, even if the elements are unknown, the apparent relationships among them may fall into familiar patterns. So, one's knowledge may include three kinds of data: the elements one has seen before, the dynamics (relationships) one has seen before, and those patterns that include some combination of known and unknown elements and familiar or unfamiliar dynamics. Therefore, one might impose a pattern on a collection of completely unknown elements with the same liklihood that one might observes a collection of familar elements that fall into no familiar pattern.
Deduction would not come into play if we were only looking at the ratio of familar to unfamilar elements. It would also not come into play if we only considered the patterns. But when we consider all the information we can glean from a given observation, then we must apply our deductive logic to boil down the apparent patterns created by combinations of unfamiliar elements and dynamics to determine our overall Ability in regard to the observation in question.
Similarly, Induction would not be necessary to determine Risk, as it would be the simple inverse of Ability. But, as any observation, being limited in scope by definition, is likely to contain elements which are part of a larger set, the boundaries of which fall beyond the borders of the observation, and may also contain patterns that are only partially revealed within the scope of the observation, Induction must be applied in the attempt to fill in the rest of those patterns with information projected from that portion of each pattern which has been observed directly.
This is a process of Induction since it is not idle speculation which is not based in that which has been observed, but rather grows out of the roots of what is directly observed. If it were this speculative form of logic, it would be Production, which seeks to conceptualize Potential. Similarly, attempts to boil down the patterns that were actually oberved to only those which are pertinent to the task at hand would be Reduction, which seeks to determine Probability.
Therefore, in your considerations of Observation in terms of Knowledge, Ability, Deduction and Induction, you must expand your appreciation of the model beyond elements alone and incorporate the additional dimension of pattern recognition.
Melanie Anne Phillips
(Posted by Chris Huntley)
heds22 Ability and risk #5
The terms used are taken directly from the paper:
"Ability rates the potential risk, by determining how much of an observation we have experienced before. We have no idea what the unknown parts of the observation may contain, so they pose the greatest risk. the less opportunity for risk and the greater the perceived Ability. Obviously if Ability were never to be measured, a person would make decisions in complete ignorance of the risk involved.
Deductive thinking is the process of comparing experience to observation to determine risk....
Inductive thinking ... has no power to determine the risk of the paths."
Further to quote,
"So a process whereby the brain can estimate the potential risk versus the potential gain in Knowledge would aid in survival. The mechanism for making this selection is described by the right side of the equation, Ability and Desire.
Ability rates the potential risk, by determining how much of an observation we have experienced before.
Desire rates the potential increase of Knowledge by determining how familiar we are with the portions we have experienced before."
Melanie suggests the case may be that "Ability (K1 vs. K2) being determined by deduction is an inverse to Risk being determined by induction."
Thank you Melanie for explaining the arrangements of knowledge, ability and deduction and induction in relation to the dimension of pattern recognition. That provides greater resolution for the utilisation of these terms.
My sole issue here, is the apparent dichotomy created by the connection of risk as stated in relation to induction, and then as stated in its relation to deduction.
I think the point here is in related to induction, which to quote Melanie involves, "those patterns with information projected from that portion of each pattern which has been observed directly".
How does this process show risk being determined by induction?
Does it require the involvement of deduction as part of the process?
The points I'm discussing/asking questions about, are intended to get clarification as to what the nature and definition of 'risk' is within this theory.
LB as consciously deductive (via thought and knowledge??)and subconsciously Productive (via desirability??)(conceptualizing Potential) (t / k = d * a)
RB individuals, the conscious mind would be Reductive (via ability and desirability??) (determine Probability), and the subconscious (via logic??) Inductive. (t*k = d / a)
[As an aside: Which brain is measuring the pairs of Ability and Desire and Thought and Knowledge? If one is subconscious and the other conscious, how does this fit with the conscious and subconscious natures of deductive, inductive, reductive and productive reasoning?]
LB is working out risk via deduction to measure ability ?? and measuring the intensity of desirability via production.
and the RB is working out risk by induction by comparing the possible to impossible ?? and determining probabiliy via reduction?
If both deduction (Ability) and induction are used to look at risk - how are we using and defining risk here?
Chris Huntley Re: Ability and risk #6
Melanie is not a regular on these boards so I'll pass along your response and further questions.
One thing I would like to clarify is that we do not refer to Left Brain and Right Brain in Mental Relativity. We refer to Left Mind and Right Mind. The rather significant difference is that RB and LB are tied to physiology--the brain--while LM and RM are not. RB is not the same as RM and LB is not the same as LM.
heds22 Re: Ability and risk #7
OK thanks, I look forward to a reply from Melanie. I'll use LM and RM rather than LB and RB as you point out.
Also I'd like a better understanding of whether LM and RM measure one of the Ability / Desire functions first?
LM (t / k = a * d) first uses deduction to measure 'ability'?
and then production (conceptualizing potential) to measure 'desire'?
RM (t*k = d / a) first uses Reductive (to determine Probability) to measure '..'?
and then induction to measure '...'?
Chris Huntley Re: Ability and risk #8
There are actually eight variations of the two equations. Each equation describes the different processing of TKA and D. It may be a long while before we get back to you with specifics on this. We're both a bit rusty. It's been 12 to 16 years since we were deeply into that part of the theory. It will take us a while to get up to speed to get you accurate responses.
heds22 Re: Ability and risk #9
I appreciate its been quite a long while since you were into the deep theory. I much hope and anticipate with intrigue to you guys providing the finishing touches to the theory you have developed. For one, I think its a most deserving and worthy contribution in its own right.
Cheers and look forward to your accurate responses as they eventually come forthwith!