Page 22
GENERAL SEMANTICS
An Introduction to Perception
A not-for-profit crash-course in the study of General Semantics.
A tribute compiled and edited by Robert Anton.
For more information, visit the Institute Of General Semantics website:
www.generalsemantics.org
Fig. 1.
A short introduction to the long introduction
Here are three of the most life-changing pieces of information in the history of the world, and chances are you've never heard of any of them: Alfred Korzibski; The Structural Differential; and General Semantics. Even now, you probably couldn't care less about any of these, yet they are, together, every bit the equal of Albert Einstein's ideas on relativity, the splitting of the atom, and our most recent insights into the multiverse realms of quantum mechanics.
"If, in the annals of human existence, it should so happen that Homo sapiens failed as a species of great promise, it will not have been because we lacked the knowledge necessary to resolve many if not most of the issues which ultimately led to our demise. More likely it was because we lacked the wisdom to use the great tools at our disposal, bestowed to us by the great geniuses who lived among us."
It is ironic and a bit sad that everyone has heard of Albert Einstein, but mention Alfred Korzibski (1879-1950) and all you'll get will be an odd stare at best, or concern that you're not well at worst. Alfred was a Polish American, by the way, so it's not like he was one of those Slavakian hermits who lived in caves and whose work was later discovered by a nephew searching for his lost ball.
What Einstein and Stephen Hawking accomplished in the field of astrophysics, Korzibski paralleled in the field of linguistics. Last time I looked, language and communication were fairly important aspects in life, but since you can't make a big bomb out of words (the f-bomb notwithstanding) or get down with the awesomeness of Black Holes, Alfred K. got left holding the bag, so to speak, and people have shirked him (and his presumably poop-laden sack) ever since.
The reason is pretty obvious when you get right down to it, though. Whereas we can sit back and from the comfort of our chairs (or sofas) watch what Albert and Steve have done in the world, it's a bit more complicated with Korzibski's stuff. Colorful, beautifully rendered CGI movies can be found on all the science TV channels, all of them explaining with movie-quality animation, the captivating worlds of Black Holes and gravity and exploding stars. Very cool. Poor Korzibski; his stuff is more hands-on, more immediate, personal, even intimate. And therein lies the rub, as they say. I don't know who still says that, though someone must. But I digress.
General Semantics, in general, isn't something that we marvel at watching someone else do. It's something that requires our personal involvement. An interaction that demands an investment of time, concentration, and contemplation. That's a lot to ask of people and it's no wonder Alfred's contributions have never found a big audience or following among the unwashed masses. Referring to dusty brains, that is. Another example of earth-shaking ideas that never caused many ceiling tiles to fall is Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and her Objectivist movement. In some ways every bit the equal of Korzibski's work, Rand is its own study and it would be pretentious of me to paraphrase her work or make a case for it on this or any other website. I've done enough of that (or far too little) simply trying to pay homage to Korzibski's colossal body of work.
So for those who are not familiar with General Semantics, which is just about everybody (relativistically speaking), take a casual stroll among the highlights I've provided on this and the next two pages. For most, it will appear to read like so much gobbledygook; it did to me when I was first introduced to this material by a friend. Which is pretty much how a lot of folks get hooked on what's here.
In the end, this is one of those things that is such a wonderful discovery, and can add so much to one's personal understanding and outlook on life, it almost defies explanation as to why the world seems so reluctant -- even hostile -- in accepting, adopting, and embracing the amazing formulations that Korzibski gave to us. Then again, the answer is likely as obvious as might be imagined. A great deal of mental "sweat" is necessary to appreciate and comprehend what General Semantics is all about. That's not meant to sound as audacious or self-important as it sounds, as if one needs to be of extraordinary intelligence to grasp the concepts involved. On the contrary and as opposed to many other complex revelations in science, relatively little education is required, and math is hardly even part of the mix. It's mostly all common sense, presented, explored, and evaluated in uncommon and extraordinary ways. It's also not something that one takes a quick glance at and says, "Cool, this is for me." As Al himself might have been wont to say, it's more like something a person sneaks upon, stealthily, then points in silence as they watch ghostly forms pulling the levers and turning the dials of existence.
"If, in the annals of human existence, it should so happen that Homo sapiens failed as a species of great promise, it will not have been because we lacked the knowledge necessary to resolve many if not most of the issues which ultimately led to our demise. More likely it was because we lacked the wisdom to use the great tools at our disposal, bestowed to us by the great geniuses who lived among us."
It is ironic and a bit sad that everyone has heard of Albert Einstein, but mention Alfred Korzibski (1879-1950) and all you'll get will be an odd stare at best, or concern that you're not well at worst. Alfred was a Polish American, by the way, so it's not like he was one of those Slavakian hermits who lived in caves and whose work was later discovered by a nephew searching for his lost ball.
What Einstein and Stephen Hawking accomplished in the field of astrophysics, Korzibski paralleled in the field of linguistics. Last time I looked, language and communication were fairly important aspects in life, but since you can't make a big bomb out of words (the f-bomb notwithstanding) or get down with the awesomeness of Black Holes, Alfred K. got left holding the bag, so to speak, and people have shirked him (and his presumably poop-laden sack) ever since.
The reason is pretty obvious when you get right down to it, though. Whereas we can sit back and from the comfort of our chairs (or sofas) watch what Albert and Steve have done in the world, it's a bit more complicated with Korzibski's stuff. Colorful, beautifully rendered CGI movies can be found on all the science TV channels, all of them explaining with movie-quality animation, the captivating worlds of Black Holes and gravity and exploding stars. Very cool. Poor Korzibski; his stuff is more hands-on, more immediate, personal, even intimate. And therein lies the rub, as they say. I don't know who still says that, though someone must. But I digress.
General Semantics, in general, isn't something that we marvel at watching someone else do. It's something that requires our personal involvement. An interaction that demands an investment of time, concentration, and contemplation. That's a lot to ask of people and it's no wonder Alfred's contributions have never found a big audience or following among the unwashed masses. Referring to dusty brains, that is. Another example of earth-shaking ideas that never caused many ceiling tiles to fall is Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and her Objectivist movement. In some ways every bit the equal of Korzibski's work, Rand is its own study and it would be pretentious of me to paraphrase her work or make a case for it on this or any other website. I've done enough of that (or far too little) simply trying to pay homage to Korzibski's colossal body of work.
So for those who are not familiar with General Semantics, which is just about everybody (relativistically speaking), take a casual stroll among the highlights I've provided on this and the next two pages. For most, it will appear to read like so much gobbledygook; it did to me when I was first introduced to this material by a friend. Which is pretty much how a lot of folks get hooked on what's here.
In the end, this is one of those things that is such a wonderful discovery, and can add so much to one's personal understanding and outlook on life, it almost defies explanation as to why the world seems so reluctant -- even hostile -- in accepting, adopting, and embracing the amazing formulations that Korzibski gave to us. Then again, the answer is likely as obvious as might be imagined. A great deal of mental "sweat" is necessary to appreciate and comprehend what General Semantics is all about. That's not meant to sound as audacious or self-important as it sounds, as if one needs to be of extraordinary intelligence to grasp the concepts involved. On the contrary and as opposed to many other complex revelations in science, relatively little education is required, and math is hardly even part of the mix. It's mostly all common sense, presented, explored, and evaluated in uncommon and extraordinary ways. It's also not something that one takes a quick glance at and says, "Cool, this is for me." As Al himself might have been wont to say, it's more like something a person sneaks upon, stealthily, then points in silence as they watch ghostly forms pulling the levers and turning the dials of existence.
This is not a pipe.
Fig. 2. The iconic painting by Rene Magritte.
I.
SEMANTICS
An Examination of Language
A. Examining word-to-word relationships. (grammar)
B. Sentence-to-sentence relationships: (two or more)
01. The basic unit is the paragraph. (statements involving logic and validity systems)
C. Semantics: Relationships of statements in comparison to something outside the statements themselves:
01. Determinations of truths or falsehoods.
02. Examining language by getting out of it.
B. Sentence-to-sentence relationships: (two or more)
01. The basic unit is the paragraph. (statements involving logic and validity systems)
C. Semantics: Relationships of statements in comparison to something outside the statements themselves:
01. Determinations of truths or falsehoods.
02. Examining language by getting out of it.
Fig. 3. Click here to visit the home website.
II.
GENERAL SEMANTICS
Applied Epistemology / How we know what we know
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Systems of formulations which initially reject their own conclusions. A presumption that all conclusions are tentative as of a given date, and open to new information.
B. The intended purpose is to achieve a consciousness (awareness) of abstractions and our abstracting processes, which result in beneficial improvements of behavior.
C. The formulations are directed towards a structural fit between what we perceive, and that which seems to exist outside ourselves. A strong bias for empirical data is considered integral. Evaluations in the following order:
LANGUAGE / THINKING / REALITY / STRUCTURES / BEHAVIOR
D. Thoughtful, delayed responses (internalization) via flexibility and accomodation of specific, individual circumstances.
E. Understanding and adopting methods and systems (formulations) that have applicability to everyday life.
B. The intended purpose is to achieve a consciousness (awareness) of abstractions and our abstracting processes, which result in beneficial improvements of behavior.
C. The formulations are directed towards a structural fit between what we perceive, and that which seems to exist outside ourselves. A strong bias for empirical data is considered integral. Evaluations in the following order:
LANGUAGE / THINKING / REALITY / STRUCTURES / BEHAVIOR
D. Thoughtful, delayed responses (internalization) via flexibility and accomodation of specific, individual circumstances.
E. Understanding and adopting methods and systems (formulations) that have applicability to everyday life.
III.
FORMULATIONS
The Underlying Premises of General Semantics
A. All that we experience is perceived via our nervous systems. The proof of this can be demonstrated via a simple I.Q. test administered as follows:
01. Find a friend and get any size sledge hammer.
02. Instruct the friend to swing the hammer in an overhead arc such that it strikes you on top of your head and comes to rest at about shoulder level.
03. Have your friend immediately give you an I.Q. test.
B. The realities which underlie our perceptual experiences cannot be directly observed.
C. Culture is a shared hallucination.
D. Humans are a time-binding and time-bound class of life whose tool of time-binding is language.
E. The accumulation of data and perpetuation of cultural structures leads to static expectations in terms of how we present things to ourselves.
F. A conflict exists between reality at the process level (what’s really going on) and the static structures of language and culture. This tension leads to pathological behavior (in varying degrees) among individuals and within collective societies.
G. All technological systems and structures are extensions of human nervous systems. A self-reflexive dynamic exists wherein one reinforces the other. The arts are recognized as a rare departure from this arrangement.
H. Symbol systems are connected to nervous systems, which are connected to behavior systems.
I. An investigative examination of language, behavior, and reality is directed at the sanitization of culture, or of one’s own thinking.
01. Find a friend and get any size sledge hammer.
02. Instruct the friend to swing the hammer in an overhead arc such that it strikes you on top of your head and comes to rest at about shoulder level.
03. Have your friend immediately give you an I.Q. test.
B. The realities which underlie our perceptual experiences cannot be directly observed.
C. Culture is a shared hallucination.
D. Humans are a time-binding and time-bound class of life whose tool of time-binding is language.
E. The accumulation of data and perpetuation of cultural structures leads to static expectations in terms of how we present things to ourselves.
F. A conflict exists between reality at the process level (what’s really going on) and the static structures of language and culture. This tension leads to pathological behavior (in varying degrees) among individuals and within collective societies.
G. All technological systems and structures are extensions of human nervous systems. A self-reflexive dynamic exists wherein one reinforces the other. The arts are recognized as a rare departure from this arrangement.
H. Symbol systems are connected to nervous systems, which are connected to behavior systems.
I. An investigative examination of language, behavior, and reality is directed at the sanitization of culture, or of one’s own thinking.
Fig. 4. Credit: truthcontest.com
Rose-Colored Glasses by any other name . . .
The foregoing and following material represents ways of thinking and seeing that, while not new, attempt to comprehend the underlying principles of what we, as humans, refer to as reality. It is concerned with the acquisition and application of knowledge via language – both internally and externally expressed. But not necessarily, however, with notions of wisdom (moral/value determinations). General Semantics is a clinical, but passionate investigation into the authenticity of how we view both ourselves and the world.
These elements are considered important because of a straightforward cause and effect relationship which manifests itself in terms of behavioral attitudes and actions. One’s relationship with the world is inseparable from one’s perception of the world – or from conceived notions (beliefs) of what constitutes reality.
Everything we’ve ever been taught, have learned, or come to believe is true – about ourselves and the real world – is mostly wrong, inaccurate, or totally false-to-fact. This is not an idea which can be accepted easily or lightly, and one’s resistance to this concept is understandable and normal. In General Semantics there are no truths, nor good or evil, or right or wrong. Subjective value judgements of this sort represent individual responses to personal, privately important truths and are not normally part of a General Semantics protocol.
This protocol does not provide information of its own, but rather it evaluates information itself. The methodology involved is intended for those persons who live by, or could live with, the following precept: That it is more desirable, necessary even, to expose and eliminate incorrect ideas and beliefs, than to maintain them based upon the notion that they might be correct, or are likely accurate, or that they are indeed totally true. Rather it is preferable to suffer the loss of a comfortable belief system -- that is satisfying, but might possibly be inauthentic – than to act upon premises whose veracity or validity are possibilities only. The relinquishing of an answer or truism, for which no substitution is available other than a question, represents a base-line construct of General Semantics. This exists as a principle of gain and not loss, in the sense that answers and truths are barriers to new information. The acquisition of knowledge is a form of controlled anarchy, a situation whereby data is constantly flowing through one’s mind, but rarely takes up permanent residence.
The following material is an overview of some of the elements considered important within the field of General Semantics. The evaluative examinations demonstrated are intended to serve as a precursory introduction to the fundamental visual model of General Semantics called the Structural Differential designed by Alfred Korzybski, the father of General Semantics.
These elements are considered important because of a straightforward cause and effect relationship which manifests itself in terms of behavioral attitudes and actions. One’s relationship with the world is inseparable from one’s perception of the world – or from conceived notions (beliefs) of what constitutes reality.
Everything we’ve ever been taught, have learned, or come to believe is true – about ourselves and the real world – is mostly wrong, inaccurate, or totally false-to-fact. This is not an idea which can be accepted easily or lightly, and one’s resistance to this concept is understandable and normal. In General Semantics there are no truths, nor good or evil, or right or wrong. Subjective value judgements of this sort represent individual responses to personal, privately important truths and are not normally part of a General Semantics protocol.
This protocol does not provide information of its own, but rather it evaluates information itself. The methodology involved is intended for those persons who live by, or could live with, the following precept: That it is more desirable, necessary even, to expose and eliminate incorrect ideas and beliefs, than to maintain them based upon the notion that they might be correct, or are likely accurate, or that they are indeed totally true. Rather it is preferable to suffer the loss of a comfortable belief system -- that is satisfying, but might possibly be inauthentic – than to act upon premises whose veracity or validity are possibilities only. The relinquishing of an answer or truism, for which no substitution is available other than a question, represents a base-line construct of General Semantics. This exists as a principle of gain and not loss, in the sense that answers and truths are barriers to new information. The acquisition of knowledge is a form of controlled anarchy, a situation whereby data is constantly flowing through one’s mind, but rarely takes up permanent residence.
The following material is an overview of some of the elements considered important within the field of General Semantics. The evaluative examinations demonstrated are intended to serve as a precursory introduction to the fundamental visual model of General Semantics called the Structural Differential designed by Alfred Korzybski, the father of General Semantics.
Fig. 5.
IV.
FACTS vs. INFERENCES
A. Facts involve epistemology. (the study of how we know, what we know)
B. Statements of fact contain:
01. Something which is observed:
a. Past and/or present – but never future.
b. Future events involve predictive degrees of probability about something which hasn’t happened yet; they are to be considered inappropriate due to a lack of absolute certainty.
c. High degrees of probability may lead to dangerous conclusions or behaviors (despite high degrees of probability). Hypotheses are better.
02. Public verification.
C. Inferences are statements which contain:
01. Assertions that go beyond, or are more than factual.
02. In subtle degrees, a tendency exists to treat inferences as statements of fact.
D. Negative models: Proving statements wrong as opposed to self-serving efforts directed towards proving statements right:
01. Validity is not necessarily truth.
02. Both requirements (observation/verification) for factual statements must be fulfilled – as a minimum – in order to provide for the possibility only, that a given statement is factual.
03. If either of the two requirements is absent, or in question, it is to be assumed that facts are not present.
E. Necessary versus sufficient:
01. Although two requirements are considered necessary, they may not be sufficient for statements to be considered factual.
F. Examples:
01. This train is traveling at twenty mph. (a fact)
02. At this rate, we’ll be an hour late. (an inference of probability)
03. This railroad is no damn good. (an inference of shared bias about how others also think -- in this case an inappropriate value judgment)
04. People ought to boycott this railroad: (an inferential escalation)
a. Purposive social message – intent is either destructive or productive.
G. Habitual inferences create a rigid world view.
H. Increased awareness creates flexible inference levels.
I. Inferences are useful and necessary, but should be regarded as tools only, in ascertaining factual aspects.
J. Inferences which contain high probabilities of authenticity are considered to be low-orders of inference. Inferences containing low probabilities, whose correctness is conjectural at best, are considered high-orders of inference.
B. Statements of fact contain:
01. Something which is observed:
a. Past and/or present – but never future.
b. Future events involve predictive degrees of probability about something which hasn’t happened yet; they are to be considered inappropriate due to a lack of absolute certainty.
c. High degrees of probability may lead to dangerous conclusions or behaviors (despite high degrees of probability). Hypotheses are better.
02. Public verification.
C. Inferences are statements which contain:
01. Assertions that go beyond, or are more than factual.
02. In subtle degrees, a tendency exists to treat inferences as statements of fact.
D. Negative models: Proving statements wrong as opposed to self-serving efforts directed towards proving statements right:
01. Validity is not necessarily truth.
02. Both requirements (observation/verification) for factual statements must be fulfilled – as a minimum – in order to provide for the possibility only, that a given statement is factual.
03. If either of the two requirements is absent, or in question, it is to be assumed that facts are not present.
E. Necessary versus sufficient:
01. Although two requirements are considered necessary, they may not be sufficient for statements to be considered factual.
F. Examples:
01. This train is traveling at twenty mph. (a fact)
02. At this rate, we’ll be an hour late. (an inference of probability)
03. This railroad is no damn good. (an inference of shared bias about how others also think -- in this case an inappropriate value judgment)
04. People ought to boycott this railroad: (an inferential escalation)
a. Purposive social message – intent is either destructive or productive.
G. Habitual inferences create a rigid world view.
H. Increased awareness creates flexible inference levels.
I. Inferences are useful and necessary, but should be regarded as tools only, in ascertaining factual aspects.
J. Inferences which contain high probabilities of authenticity are considered to be low-orders of inference. Inferences containing low probabilities, whose correctness is conjectural at best, are considered high-orders of inference.
V.
REDUCTIONISM
Reducing Complex Phenomena to Basic, Measurable Components
A. Color is a perceptual experience. It is the result of a transaction that takes place within brains.
B. There are always perceptual differences among individual brains. Many if not most are within degrees of tolerance which are either insignificant or don’t make a difference.
C. Color is defined scientifically as the response in brains to stimulation by varying frequencies/waves of a mode of energy we call light.
D. Light is defined according to varying levels of abstraction; it may be a personal experience, or an event as described from the viewpoint of a physicist:
01. Light travels at 186,281 miles-per-second. (a fact)
02. Signals travel along human nerve fibers at 225 mph. (a fact)
03. Humans can see light? Light-speed versus 225 mph. A misnomer based on an inferential abstraction. Humans infer that we see an optical illusion that we further infer is a thing we call light.
E. The sky is blue versus the sky appears blue to human brains:
01. Inappropriate assignments of personal experiences to the outside world.
02. Trans-cultural lingual projections (shared inadequacies/inaccuracies among all languages)
03. The unsuitable notion that the world is made of things:
a. That things have qualities.
b. That qualities are intrinsically possessed by things. (the beauty of Earth's azure sky)
04. The color blue is only a response between one’s nervous system and the interaction of light with molecules of air.
B. There are always perceptual differences among individual brains. Many if not most are within degrees of tolerance which are either insignificant or don’t make a difference.
C. Color is defined scientifically as the response in brains to stimulation by varying frequencies/waves of a mode of energy we call light.
D. Light is defined according to varying levels of abstraction; it may be a personal experience, or an event as described from the viewpoint of a physicist:
01. Light travels at 186,281 miles-per-second. (a fact)
02. Signals travel along human nerve fibers at 225 mph. (a fact)
03. Humans can see light? Light-speed versus 225 mph. A misnomer based on an inferential abstraction. Humans infer that we see an optical illusion that we further infer is a thing we call light.
E. The sky is blue versus the sky appears blue to human brains:
01. Inappropriate assignments of personal experiences to the outside world.
02. Trans-cultural lingual projections (shared inadequacies/inaccuracies among all languages)
03. The unsuitable notion that the world is made of things:
a. That things have qualities.
b. That qualities are intrinsically possessed by things. (the beauty of Earth's azure sky)
04. The color blue is only a response between one’s nervous system and the interaction of light with molecules of air.
VI.
THE ROTATING DISK
Believing is Seeing
A. An imaginary situation whereby a small disk, several inches in diameter, sits atop a table and faces toward a viewer some distance away. Behind and attached to the disk is a motor. The viewer cannot and does not know whether the motor is on or off. Or whether the disk is spinning or completely at rest. It appears to be a solid, nondescript color.
01. Is the disk stopped?
a. Different levels of observation vs. different levels of abstraction. (inferring whether the disk is stopped or moving)
02. Cosmic: The Big view:
a. The disk is not moving.
03. Macroscopic: Reports of the unaided nervous system:
a. The disk is stopped.
04. Microscopic: Shared experiences via mechanical aids:
a. The disk is stopped.
b. The disk is moving.
05. Sub-microscopic: An inference level shared by victims of atomic bombs or radiation poisoning:
a. The disk is moving.
06. Memory: Incoming (updated) data vs old, stored data:
a. The disk is stopped.
b. The disk is moving.
07. Answer: Yes to no, no to yes, yes-no, no-yes.
B. Orientational Awareness:
01. Reevaluating when necessary.
02. An important aspect of General Semantics.
01. Is the disk stopped?
a. Different levels of observation vs. different levels of abstraction. (inferring whether the disk is stopped or moving)
02. Cosmic: The Big view:
a. The disk is not moving.
03. Macroscopic: Reports of the unaided nervous system:
a. The disk is stopped.
04. Microscopic: Shared experiences via mechanical aids:
a. The disk is stopped.
b. The disk is moving.
05. Sub-microscopic: An inference level shared by victims of atomic bombs or radiation poisoning:
a. The disk is moving.
06. Memory: Incoming (updated) data vs old, stored data:
a. The disk is stopped.
b. The disk is moving.
07. Answer: Yes to no, no to yes, yes-no, no-yes.
B. Orientational Awareness:
01. Reevaluating when necessary.
02. An important aspect of General Semantics.
VII.
ABSTRACTION
A Process of All Protoplasm / The View from Within
A. Structurally (physiologically) determined: processes of selecting and filtering.
B. An interaction, in terms of personal human structure, between ourselves and with something going on.
C. Responses (reactions to stimuli) vs non-cognitive, non-responses:
01. The ability to hear radio waves.
02. The inability to see television signals.
03. Many examples.
D. Much is going on around and within us, to which we do not or cannot respond or react.
E. Abstraction is a trans-cultural phenomenon that appears to be exclusively human in nature.
F. Higher levels of abstraction: (inference)
01. A determining level that separates humans from all other organisms.
02. Exclusively mammalian characteristics. (from what we can tell)
G. The abstracting process:
01. Transducing: transformations of different kinds of energy:
a. Sound-waves transduced into perceptions of sound within brains.
b. Electro-magnetic energy transformed ito electro-chemical energy.
c. Brains are as characteristically individual as faces.
02. Integrating: Merging experiences within the brain:
a. The hierarchical brain:
0a. Specific involuntary functions of the brain vs different abstraction levels.
0b. Mental cognitions that result from holographic, wholistic brain functions.
b. A non-conscious process.
03. Projecting: Neuro-biological functions:
a. The tendency of a brain to locate its own experiences elsewhere:
0a. The assignment of internal to external.
0b. the pain in sprain is mainly in the brain.
An Introduction to General Semantics
continues on page NOU23.
B. An interaction, in terms of personal human structure, between ourselves and with something going on.
C. Responses (reactions to stimuli) vs non-cognitive, non-responses:
01. The ability to hear radio waves.
02. The inability to see television signals.
03. Many examples.
D. Much is going on around and within us, to which we do not or cannot respond or react.
E. Abstraction is a trans-cultural phenomenon that appears to be exclusively human in nature.
F. Higher levels of abstraction: (inference)
01. A determining level that separates humans from all other organisms.
02. Exclusively mammalian characteristics. (from what we can tell)
G. The abstracting process:
01. Transducing: transformations of different kinds of energy:
a. Sound-waves transduced into perceptions of sound within brains.
b. Electro-magnetic energy transformed ito electro-chemical energy.
c. Brains are as characteristically individual as faces.
02. Integrating: Merging experiences within the brain:
a. The hierarchical brain:
0a. Specific involuntary functions of the brain vs different abstraction levels.
0b. Mental cognitions that result from holographic, wholistic brain functions.
b. A non-conscious process.
03. Projecting: Neuro-biological functions:
a. The tendency of a brain to locate its own experiences elsewhere:
0a. The assignment of internal to external.
0b. the pain in sprain is mainly in the brain.
An Introduction to General Semantics
continues on page NOU23.
You're currently on page NOU22
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
