Welcome to Episode 18 of the series Philosophy Unveiled, by the author Lane Friesen. I’m Rachel and I’m doing the reading today.In the last episode, we demonstrated that the brain is capable of discovering science. We saw that the scientific method involves a kind of cascading analysis through three critical loops – Observation, Reflection and iNtuition. We examined the interaction of these circuits with other loops such as Thinking and Understanding. We also introduced three distinct ways in which this processing is coordinated. First, there is the Reason loop and its consciousness. This gathers and coordinates the results of independent cognition, in the various strategies that are represented by the differing cognitive styles, and it formulates the result into a speech stream. Reason therefore needs words in order to think. We suggested that Reason is ruled by Facilitator thought.Then, we introduced common sense, and suggested that it is formulated within the Weltanschauung or Worldview circuit. This Weltanschauung loop provides the mind with an updated model of the external world, so that it can adapt thought and action to altered conditions. We saw that Weltanschauung depends strongly upon an ongoing Teacher understanding and Mercy identification – when these elements are missing, then the mind becomes very inflexible.Finally, we suggested that both reason and common sense interact with being. This being, as we have presented it thus far, comes in two flavors – Kinship is one variant. A good example of being that is based in Kinship might be citizenship in some nation state. For instance, my nationality is Canadian – that’s part of my Kinship-based being. The unique thing about Kinship is that it is relatively insensitive to the size of the Kinship-based social grouping. Suppose, for example, that we placed 100 Canadians in a room, and then separated them into two groups, each with 50 Canadians. It wouldn’t make any difference to the individuals themselves – they’d still all remain equally Canadian. Or, suppose that we formed a club of birdwatchers. Let’s say it had 100 members. Then, we split the group into two and moved them apart. We’d now have two sets of birdwatchers, each with 50 members. Both groupings could still have the same kinds of club meetings, and still go out to watch the same sorts of birds – it wouldn’t make any difference to the members at all, as far as their bird-watching was concerned, if they were part of the larger group, or one of the two smaller off-shoots. That’s how Kinship works.Let’s look now at an example of being that is based in Dasein. In contrast to Kinship, Dasein cares very much about diversity, and thus also about size. We might imagine the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, for instance, divided into two by an impassible barrier. It would be a disaster. A resident’s home might be in one half, and his employer in the other – he would either be homeless, or out of a job. If hospitals happened to end up on one side of the division, then the people in the other half would have health care challenges. That’s how it works with the being of Dasein. Whenever an interlocking Dasein group is split, then the Dasein or being of each member is degraded, for Dasein interaction is based in the mutual beneficial exchange of specialized abilities.So, let’s put it together. The waking mind is integrated, first of all, by Reason and its consciousness – the logic of this reason is expressed in speech, and is consistent with science. The reasonableness of Reason is adjusted in turn by Weltanschauung and its common sense. Finally, upon a foundation of consciousness and common sense, being develops. This being may base itself in a commonality of Kinship – nationalism here would be a good example. Being in contrast may develop further into an interpersonal division of labor, and involve Dasein with its globalized division of labor. That brings us finally to the topic for this episode – I’d like to look at the economic implications of Dasein-based being.Now, Martin Heidegger indicates that being always involves a transfer of data from C(l) to F(l) – he calls this flow of data an assertion, and he suggests that it can lead to speech. What happens when Kinship takes a stand on its being, by moving information from C(l) to F(l)? Well, let’s suppose that a Canadian hockey team won a gold medal in hockey at the Olympics. If a Canadian were hiking in the woods, and he heard the news, then he would probably cheer; if fifty Canadians were watching the event together in a room, then they also might all cheer. These many Canadians would of course all be taking an individual stand on their being, when they cheered, but they would be doing so in a manner that made the size of the group relatively unimportant. That’s Kinship.It’s very different with Dasein and its division of labor. Suppose, for instance, that I wish to take a stand on my being by putting my words into a book. I will require readers who do not know what I know. Factories must construct a computer for people like me; power companies will need to supply electricity. For every person like me who decides to write, there must in fact be multiple thousands of individuals with skills that are very different. The being of Dasein, unlike Kinship, thrives as diversity grows. Any schism in a Dasein-oriented group can easily be world- or Weltanschauung-shattering to the Daseins of those disparate individuals who make up the social grouping – their separate beings or Daseins may also dissolve and disappear.Parenthetically, if we are familiar with sociology, then we might link at this point to Emile Durkheim and his distinction between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity – it is precisely our current distinction between Kinship and Dasein that he is discussing.OK, let’s examine the being of Dasein more closely. We’ll start with a point that I introduced in the last episode – left hemisphere Contributor C(l) and right hemisphere Contributor C(r) always ‘take a stand’ as a pair – that is, whenever C(l) sends information to F(l), then C(r) quickly sends data also to F(r).What is the significance of this pairing of C(l) and C(r)? Well, it turns out that a C(l) stand on its being, or a data transfer from C(l) to F(l), is seen by the mind as an ‘if.’ In mathematics, an ‘if’ is always followed by a ‘then,’ and it is precisely this ‘then’ which is the function of C(r). The resulting ‘if-then’ structure - if we supply the correct set of ANDs and ORs - turns out to define a logic processor. And, linguists tell us that all of speech is based in very simple logic – five operators, eight inferences, and a set of replacements – so, if we wished to turn to mathematics, we could then work out how the mind formulates speech.Now, we might wonder, “Why does right hemisphere Contributor C(r) handle the ‘then,’ but not the ‘if.’” It’s because this right hemisphere Contributor C(r) region chains logical statements or objects together into plans, using what mathematics would call AND structures, and these define a sequential memory addressing scheme, and that does not easily relocate itself. For instance, we might imagine sheets of paper as they were chained together in a roll of toilet paper. Suppose we were asked to move from sheet 24 to sheet 258. We would have to find some place where we could unroll the paper, and then we would have to walk along the roll of sheets, until we arrived at our destination.It is the left hemisphere C(l) that initiates the logical ‘if’ – it does this by taking what Heidegger calls a ‘stand on its being.’ It can do this very flexibly because it deals with branched ORs, and these set up a random addressing memory system. It would be like having sheets of paper bound into a book, rather than chained in a roll – we would then be able to flip instantly from page 24 to page 258.What does all of this have to do with economics? Well, what do we do in a market system? If my neighbor owns a shovel, and I need to clear the snow from my driveway, then I can trade the use of my skis for his shovel, and both of us will get the job done. Can Kinship make this kind of an exchange? No, because Kinship assumes that everyone is similar. I have a shovel; you have a shovel; we all have shovels. If there is only one shovel, then it is owned communally. It is when my neighbor has a shovel, and he owns it, and I don’t, that Dasein triggers. We conclude that Dasein with its ‘if-then’ logic is very critically related to modern economics.OK, let’s move further. We stated in previous episodes that C(l), where Dasein originates, is the home of the will. How does this will operate? Does it choose our actions? Well, not directly. Contrary to what most of us might think, will does not generate an action signal. It is Server and Perceiver strategies, within the left and the right superior parietal regions respectively, that generate ‘go’ signals for action: “Single-cell recordings in go no-go paradigms have shown that superior parietal neurons in macaques [monkeys] code the 'intention-to-move' during no-go trials.”Perceiver strategy turns out to play a particularly crucial role in these action decisions: “Our data suggest that the right superior parietal cortex [Perceiver] seems to play a key role in inter-hemispheric visuo-motor integration and that the nature of the information transferred that best correlates with the CUD [Crossed-Uncrossed Difference] is a 'motor intention'.” Of course, we might have deduced this fact from our previous discussion of Dissociative Observation – Perceiver strategy can play internally with alternate reality, and at the same time block the associated actions. It does this by neglecting to transmit a ‘motor intention.’So, if will in C(l) does not initiate action, then what does it do? Let’s not forget that C(l) initiates the logical ‘if’s within the mind – that’s a very big thing. Moreover, since C(l) is constructed upon OR’s, similar to the pages in a book, C(l) also controls the random access machinery of logical memory – this allows it to direct the underlying context of action, and in this way to guide C(r) means to meet C(l) ends.Let’s look more closely at how it fits together. Planning for action, we notice first of all, takes place in right hemisphere imaginative Contributor C(r). We read: “Our findings indicate that the DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or Contributor] contributes to the mnemonic [memory] processing, and above all, to the preparatory set [of sequenced actions being planned by]…this activation, which was restricted to the right DLPFC [and thus C(r)].”The results of right hemisphere Contributor C(r) planning are delivered in turn to an area in the right hemisphere called the frontal eye field, or FEF. We read: “Regarding the premotor areas, when activation maps obtained in this condition were superimposed on anatomical images, we found that the right premotor activation observed during the delay phase [when planning takes place] was located partly in a cortical region where the precentral and the superior frontal sulci intersect, an area that may include the right frontal eye field (FEF) in human.” Research confirms that right hemisphere planning is visually imaginative: “The persistence of significant activation in the premotor area during the delay may indicate a ‘spatial rehearsal’, as subjects have to mentally shift their attention from one target to another within the visual sequence maintained ‘in mind.’”As soon as right hemisphere Contributor C(r) and the right frontal eye field have succeeded in chaining together a projected plan, then the results are transferred to the left hemisphere frontal eye field. Neurology confirms: “The right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) [or C(r)], the left frontal eye field (FEF) [which works with C(l)], the right precuneus and cuneus, and the left cerebellum were activated by both visual search and memory search. We suggest that the right DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or C(r)] is associated with the process of monitoring and manipulating multiple elements, while the left FEF [left frontal eye field, which works with C(l)] is involved in cognitive planning.”How is C(r) planning, as it shapes itself in the twin frontal eye fields, implemented by C(l)? It turns out that C(l) suppresses all actions except the first step in the C(r)-developed chain, then, when the first step has been performed, it suppresses the first step and releases the second step, and so on throughout the sequence. Again, this is consistent with neurology: “We conclude that left DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or C(l)] activation is involved directly in cognitive switching, in conjunction with parietal [Perceiver and Server] and temporal [Teacher and Mercy] brain regions [which participate in the model-building Weltanschauung].”So, we have arrived finally at a description of will as it operates in C(l). Left hemisphere Contributor C(l) will, when it takes a stand on its being, imposes a mask that suppresses or grays out all elements except the one being noticed. Researchers confirm that C(l) choice involves the suppression of alternatives: “With all levels of constraint combined, significant greater activation was observed in the left DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex] (BA46/9) [C(l)] under the suppression condition…we argue that the most likely single cognitive function of the DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex] is to specify a set of responses suitable for a given task and to bias these for selection (sculpting the response space).” Moving to mathematics, we might say that a choice of A by C(l) deselects the disjunctive complement of A within the left hemisphere OR structure of memory. This characteristic turns out to be crucial to the architecture of the brain as a logic processor.OK, let’s summarize. Perceiver and Server strategies are sufficient to perform single isolated actions: “The magnetoencephalographic signal was collected in a visually guided response-finger selection GO/NOGO task. The minimum norm distributed source analysis identified the sources in bilateral superior parietal lobules (SPL) [Server and Perceiver], with stronger activity for contralateral finger movement. Our results suggest that the human SPL [superior parietal lobule; or Server in the left hemisphere, and Perceiver in the right hemisphere] plays a role in the spatial selection in a visuomotor task similar to that identified recently in monkeys.” Putting it together, Perceiver analysis can therefore release habits, and Server strategy, as we will see in another episode, can mimic actions – this Server trait in particular allows the brain to boot up through initial stages of childhood development.Any sequencing of these Perceiver- and Server-directed actions, though, involves Contributor strategy: “A parietal-premotor network is sufficient to store visual temporo-spatial sequences in STM [short-term memory]; and, in situations when the planning and preparing of a predictable sequence of actions is required, then the DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex]…might be recruited.”As action proceeds, the right hemisphere dorsolateral C(r) region observes changes in the environment, as they are reported perhaps by Weltanschauung, and adjusts the plan as necessary to adapt to them: “This result is important as it shows, for the first time, that conscious change perception is associated with normal activity in the right DLPF [dorsolateral prefrontal, or C(r)] cortex.”The left hemisphere Contributor C(l) area on its part scans through the OR structure of planning and memory, and moves to alternatives or contingencies as necessary. Each time that one element is explored by C(l), the rest is ‘grayed out’ into darkness. Heidegger as a Contributor confirms to us that a focus by C(l) on some particular characteristic causes the rest of what is seen by his mind to become dim; he states that this ‘graying out’ is accompanied by a kind of focusing or zooming in.Alright, we’ve now identified the ‘start’ button in the brain for economics. It is the will in left hemisphere Contributor C(l), located in the dorsolateral area 46, working in conjunction with the frontal eye fields: “Brodmann area 46 [or Contributor] seems to be associated with the selection of response, whereas areas 9 and 8 [FEF, or frontal eye field] seem crucial for the maintenance of the representations.”That brings us to another question. What is it that controls this top level C(l) controller? The answer is surprising. We are told by one researcher that “imaging studies of cue-induced craving suggest that craving is mediated by several brain substrates, which include the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [or C(l)].” Another confirms that “cocaine users activated the anterior cingulate [Facilitator] and left dorsolateral prefrontal [C(l)] cortices.” This dorsolateral region responds to food as well as to drugs: “A novel finding in this study was a highly significant response to taste in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.” If the ‘if-then’ structure in the left dorsolateral region, or C(l), does not activate, then we will eat even when we are not hungry: “Compared with lean men, obese men had consistently less postprandial [after meal] activation in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, irrespective of meal size.” We conclude that biological needs, as well as cravings, are all mediated by the C(l) left hemisphere dorsolateral region. Let’s think about that for a moment. If C(l) should ever operate by itself, without some kind of Kinship or Dasein structure of being that could harness its initiatives, then the result might well be social disaster. History in fact confirms to us that this is exactly what happens. Facilitator philosopher Thomas Hobbes, for instance, lived during one time when the Kinship of the Middle Ages and its absolute monarchy had broken down, and the Dasein of a modern exchange economy had not yet developed; he pictured the result of a broken society: “There is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short…It may seem strange to some man that has not well weighed these things that Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another.” Today also, those who break up a primitive Kinship-based social system can find that the result is an ungovernable mass of individuals, and a failed state.So, economics must involve a form of being, if it is to trigger within a social grouping, and that means a transfer of data from C(l) to a cognitive F(l), in the minds of those individuals that make up the group. So, let’s move our attention to the left hemisphere anterior cingulate F(l) region. We confirm, first of all, that it is very much involved in the C(l)-C(r) ‘if-then’ logic system. Here’s a quote, which I will read, and then summarize: “The spatiotemporal analysis of brain activation during the execution of conditional reasoning tasks (the four inference forms: Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), affirming the consequent (AC), and denying the antecedent (DA)) was performed…Dipole source analysis of the difference wave (MP-BS) suggested that a generator localized in the left anterior cingulate cortex (BA 24) [or F(l)] was involved in the activation and the application of the inference rules. ERP components of the five tasks were similar in the subsequent time period between 700 and 1700 ms. Following that period, a greater negativity in the reasoning tasks, in comparison to the BS [baseline] task, developed between 1700 and 2000 ms poststimulus over the left fronto-central scalp regions. A generator of this effect was located in the right anterior cingulate cortex (BA 24) [or F(r)] and was possibly related to cognitive control. The results indicate that the cingulate cortex was activated by conditional reasoning tasks.” Summarizing, F(l) appears to process the ‘If’ of a C(l)-initiated ‘If-then,’ and about a second later, F(r) will then process the ‘then.’ Now, let’s not forget a very important condition: F(l) and F(r) will do these tasks if these twin Facilitator regions have become cognitive within the mind.Let’s move further. What does the left hemisphere Facilitator F(l) area do, when it is cognitive? How does it process the C(l) ‘if’? We’ve suggested previously that the F(l) segment calculates utility. Jeremy Bentham the Facilitator philosopher characterized utility as a measure of happiness. This orientation is confirmed by researchers: “Using a backward masking procedure similar to that of previous studies, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus during preattentive presentations of sad and happy facial affect. Conjunction analysis showed that masked affect perception, regardless of emotional valence [sad or happy], was associated with greater activation within the left amygdala and left anterior cingulate [or F(l)].” Another confirms: “During presentation of happy facial expressions, we detected a signal increase predominantly in the left anterior cingulate gyrus [or F(l)], bilateral posterior cingulate gyri, medial frontal cortex and right supramarginal gyrus, brain regions previously implicated in visuospatial and emotion processing tasks.” When this F(l) region stops operating, then the result is depression, and that certainly is not a very happy state: “Major depressed patients with psychotic features showed decreased rCBF [regional cerebral blood flow] in the left subgenual anterior cingulate cortex [F(l)] relative to both non-psychotic patients and healthy controls.”Jeremy Bentham thought that F(l)-generated utility could be calculated as an absolute number, such as four units of happiness, or perhaps five units of happiness, but modern theorists agree that one can do no better than generate an ordering of utility or happiness, based upon comparisons – A, for instance, leads to more happiness than does B.Alright, I’d now like to bring in E(l), or left hemisphere Exhorter strategy. According to our diagram, it connects directly to C(l), and thus to the will. What does this E(l) region do? Interestingly, neurology tells us that it stops things from happening. We read: “Go-P3 was located mainly in the medial part of the parietal cortex [Server and Perceiver], whereas the NoGo-P3 activity was observed in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex [E(l)].” Now, this is very interesting information. We’ve seen that a C(l) focus on some entity ‘grays out’ what is not being viewed; using the figure of a clearing in a forest, C(l) concern draws the trees nearer, and makes the clearing smaller. The more C(l) is concerned about some particular issue, the tighter is the focus of this attention. If the action is not desired, then this may be counter-productive: C(l) concern can channel thought into the action, and this might end up pushing the mind to pursue it more aggressively. Left hemisphere Exhorter E(l) and its Character loop, in contrast to C(l), moderate the action itself. E(l) can thus bring habits under control.Previously, we saw that right hemisphere Exhorter E(r), with its potential Discernment, was the cognitive generator for sexual excitement, and the engine behind Habit. We notice now that left hemisphere Exhorter E(l) with its Character, when it becomes cognitive, is a balancing entity that can shape this activity.How is this done? Exhorter E(l) motivational urging is sensed by left hemisphere Contributor C(l) as mood. Martin Heidegger the Contributor philosopher tells us that mood is like the water in which a fish is swimming, and that it deeply influences Contributor choices. Neurology again confirms this: “Alteration of mood is associated with activation of orbitofrontal cortex [or Exhorter] which may be critical to the experience of emotion.”Let’s expand our view for a moment. I’d like to point out that we’ve just covered the elements of the Perceiving loop. Martin Heidegger and Immanuel Kant indicate that this Perceiving region resonates with meaning, both in listening and in speaking. It is a combination of meaning in the Perceiving loop, and mood as it develops within the Character circuit, that reaches up to C(l), and helps it decide what matters. Let’s apply this new machinery now to economics. C(l), as we have seen, mediates desire. This may include basic needs such as hunger or thirst. The Habit loop might be operative. The Feeling circuit plays an important role, and at some point we will analyze it more closely. C(l) and its will focus this mix of desires, by suppressing or graying out alternatives. As we said, whenever C(l) places the spotlight of its attention onto something, this tends to channel thought into that highlighted region, and the mind as a result will move in that direction – that’s how C(l) will works. It leads to an important principle: As far as the mind is concerned, more is generally better.C(l) choice in turn influences F(l) – it is at this next F(l) level, in the calculation of F(l) utility, that things again have an opportunity to become more balanced.Generally, as more and more is acquired, a level is found at which satisfaction or satiation occurs. Soon after that, less is better. For instance, if one spoonful of ice-cream is good, then two are better. However, after twenty-five spoonfuls, we might feel that we have perhaps had enough, and that another spoonful would not make us more happy. We could tolerate it; it would not yet decrease our happiness, but neither would it increase it. We have in this way arrived at a peak in the utility curve that is calculated by F(l). The marginal utility, or the increase in utility from the last spoonful to the last spoonful plus one more, is now nothing. In mathematical terms, the first derivative or rate of change of the utility curve is zero, and we are thus maximally happy. That’s how economics works in the left hemisphere.All goods that can be had in abundance may in this way be brought to a maximum, and from then on they will no longer be noticed by the human mind. They in fact become totally invisible – in Heidegger’s language, they vanish into the background of what is suppressed by C(l). That’s why diamonds are more valuable than water, even though water is crucial to life, and diamonds are not. The supply of water is unlimited, and too much water is harmful to the health, and so by taking all that we want and then no more, we easily maximize the utility curve of our water use. Water then ceases completely to be part of our mental calculations; it becomes transparent to us. The supply of diamonds in contrast is limited, and because others have them, and we see them and want them, preference from Mercy thought and Feeling may cause them to become very highly valued indeed. [Water is now becoming more limited, in many parts of the world, and we can thus expect the human mind to begin to optimize its use, as it does with diamonds. This will lead to a very different kind of existence.]Let’s suppose, though, that we cannot take all that we wish. Perhaps there is an associated cost and our budget is limited. C(l) in this case can release a focus on a substitute – the unavailable item will be grayed out, and the substitute is now left unsuppressed. If we can choose Coke in a can or Coke in a bottle, for instance, and Coke in a can is less expensive, then we will take as much as we can afford of Coke in the can, and the Coke in the bottle will not be noticed by our mind, and this once more will be the end of the matter.Heidegger tells us that this sort of initiative on the part of C(l) is not only the shaping of a potential action set by means of the elimination of alternatives, but also an assertion in preparation for speech – it means that F(l) and its Reason loop speech stream could now perhaps be exploited to instruct others to perform some action. Alternatively, we could listen to instruction from others, and their words would generate meaning within the Perceiving loop, and we might carry out actions. We could in fact attempt to maximize the utility or happiness of the group as a whole – that is what Jeremy Bentham the Facilitator philosopher wanted to do.But, we’ve just missed an important point. What is it in the mind that prevents us from exceeding our budget? It is Perceiver strategy that prevents this, as it is accessed through the Thinking loop, and operating as part of Judging and conscience.And, if Perceiver analysis will not do the job, then the task of imposing budgetary discipline reverts to right hemisphere Mercy thought, with its Feeling circuit. Emile Durkheim speaks of this as a move from restitutive to punitive law.I’d like to perhaps make one comment about this. If the mind is forced to revert to Feeling, in order to enforce a contract, then we notice that Perceiving can no longer operate as an independent circuit. That’s because Feeling causes data to flow from F(l) to C(l), rather than in the opposite C(l) to F(l) direction, as occurs during Thinking.However, it is possible for Perceiving and Feeling to operate together as a hybrid circuit – I call this loop Value. We notice several things. First, C(l) in Value is no longer taking a stand on its being, and thus both Kinship and Dasein begin to break up – this will affect the social order. Second, communication is not going to be as effective, for meaning cannot resonate properly within Perceiving; speech in particular will become less logical. Third, being will begin to center around Mercy identification, which senses characteristics of objects in the external physical world. Retribution for those who violate contract will thus involve personal acts of violence against the external physical body of the perpetrator – he will be hanged in public, drawn and quartered, burned in hot oil, or have his hands cut off. The Value loop, when it is used to enforce contract in this way, can easily turn into a Vengeance circuit.OK, let’s move back to our topic, and examine Dasein itself, in its role as an economics machine. Let’s suppose that C(l) is hungry, and C(r) in response develops a plan for baking bread. The right hemisphere and its C(r) are spatial, and the elements or objects of the C(r) plan will therefore link together into a spatial sequence, as we might perhaps present them in a workflow chart. This information is passed to the left hemisphere. C(l) can now choose to release from grayness the first element, in preparation for implementation – this C(l) choice, as it passes from one element to the next in the C(r)-developed plan, will alter right hemisphere C(r) space into left hemisphere C(l) time.What happens now? Martin Heidegger indicates that C(l), as it prepares for the first step of making the bread, will reach out the hand automatically and unthinkingly for flour, under the assumption that it is ‘ready to hand’ – this reaching out will be one of the habits that are located within the Contingency loop. C(l) will assume, in its absorbed coping, that the flour is present. However, let us suppose that the flour bin is empty. Someone has used flour, while we were gone, and we didn’t know about it. The flour will now become ‘unready to hand.’ C(l) in response will release the grayness that covered the flour bin, and the mind will become aware of the flour. In particular, it will see that the flour bin is empty. Flour in our current context is a ‘for making bread’ entity – that is its essence - and now it is ‘too scarce.’ If our action context had been something else, then the mind wouldn’t have noticed. However, things have now been brought to its attention.In a similar way, we might never notice the windows in a room until it became too hot, at which time we would look around for some way to cool things down, and might perhaps glance over to see if the windows could be opened – windows in this case would alter into ‘air-cooling things.’ If we wished to exit the room, then we would be drawn to the door, and if the handle was stuck, then suddenly our entire consciousness would become aware of the handle, and it would fill our mind, so that we would separate from it as a subject, and look upon it as an object.Now, what could cause us to become aware of the flour bin, or the door handle, to the point that we might actually separate from it, and create a distinction between the subject which is us, and the object which is the bin or the door handle? The cause is a transition of the noticed and ungrayed ‘unready to hand’ aspect from the left hemisphere and F(l) – in our current example we are talking about an empty flour bin - to an item in the right hemisphere, which we recall is the home of Locke the Perceiver’s object binding, and also the location for Descartes’ separation of observer from raw sensory input.How does this transfer take place? Martin Heidegger speaks of it as de-worlding. Let’s examine the process. Before the problem emerged, C(l) absorbed coping or dealing was drawing data flow from F(l) downwards to C(l) – it was a direction that was compatible with Feeling. However, C(l) absorbed coping or dealing with bread-making has been interrupted by a flour bin that is ‘unready to hand.’ C(l) in response prepares to take a stand on its being. This reverses the flow of information between C(l) to F(l) from what it normally is in Feeling and its absorbed coping, and causes the Thinking loop to take over. Whenever the Thinking circuit operates, then some aspect within F(l) will stand out, within the current context. This noticed essence, with its adverbial ‘too scarce’ or ‘not working’ aspect is passed to Perceiver strategy by means of ISTP. Perceiver analysis, we have suggested in previous episodes, is responsible for object binding, and it begins to process the associated information, and C(r) revises its plan in the light of the sudden C(l) focus.Now, why is it necessary for the information transfer to take place in this sort of a complex way? Why is it not sufficient for F(l) simply to point at an object, and tell C(r) directly that a plan must be revised, in order to meet some problem that is ‘unready to hand’? Why must the process be mediated by Thinking and its powerful deductive logic and syllogistic machinery? In particular, why must the final stage of the transfer move through Perceiver belief? I’ll use an illustration that comes from Professor Hubert Dreyfus of the University of California in Berkeley; this scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Let’s imagine that we wish to give a lecture to 13 people, and we are assigned a classroom and told that there will be 13 chairs in the room. However, we walk in, and we see that the chairs are in boxes, and that the lecture is about to begin. Are there 13 chairs? In the current context, no, there are not. Or, let’s suppose that the chairs have come from a local museum, and they have signs attached which state, “Antique. Do not use.” Are there 13 chairs? What if some of the chairs are broken? Or, what if chairs are present, and the students walk in, and one of them weighs 350 pounds, and it is not certain that the chairs will tolerate this weight? Logic is evidently necessary, and in some cases this logic will need to be modified by aspects of belief. The mind, it turns out, is quite capable of doing this processing.If necessary, Thinking can iterate back to the left hemisphere by means of ESTP, and send data around the loop a second time. It can initiate conversation with someone else, as data passes from C(l) to F(l), and solicit their opinion. It can even ponder the meaning of their words within the Perceiving loop. When all is said and done, Perceiver belief delivers the conclusions to C(r).In this way, left hemisphere C(l) and right hemisphere C(r) are coordinated by Perceiver analysis, so that both are looking at a similar object, which is the element in the C(l) sequence which is currently ‘unready to hand’ in the context of the current action sequence.What happens next? The right hemisphere frontal eye fields and right hemisphere C(r) are responsible for visual saccades, or eye movements, and they do this searching in real time, as needs arise: “Right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was involved in goal-directed visual search, but showed no delay activity [in other words, the searching was done in real time].” The eyes look, and let’s suppose they see that flour is located nearby, in a bag that is owned by a neighbor. In Martin Heidegger’s terms, the neighbor’s flour is right hemisphere ‘present at hand.’ It isn’t yet left hemisphere ‘ready to hand,’ because it belongs to my neighbor, but it certainly is right hemisphere ‘present at hand.’Now, that brings us to the question of ownership. How does that work? John Locke the Perceiver tells us that ownership results when we mix our labor with some object. Adam Smith, a Contributor economist, speaks in turn of the labor theory of value. Perceiver strategy deals with links, and Locke tells us that these connections will link some object to our own person or being as we work with that object. It’s all part of the operation of the Classification loop. This issue of ownership ultimately becomes a Perceiver belief which also is delivered to C(r).Ownership, we might add, makes a lot of sense to the human mind. When we own something, then it becomes permanently left hemisphere ‘ready to hand.’ The mind can relax, and maintain itself at the lower level of C(l) absorbed coping or dealing in which it disappears into its environment.When a supply of owned goods is present in abundance, then F(l) in turn can move to maximal utility, without being limited by budgetary constraints or right hemisphere threats of unpleasant consequences for violating these constraints. That also is relaxing.OK, C(l) has noticed that flour is missing, and C(l) and C(r), with the help of Perceiver analysis and its Thinking loop, have managed to focus successfully on the same object, ‘flour.’ In this way, according to Heidegger, the mind has arrived at the truth of the current matter – truth, Heidegger assures us, is a thing as it is in itself, as it becomes visible, we may add, in both C(l) and C(r), so that there is nothing left to describe. Neurologically, we conclude that truth is a common focus in the frontal eye fields in both left and right hemispheres – it appears to be as simple and as complex as that.Alright, it’s evident that we’ll need to make an exchange in order to acquire our neighbor’s bag of flour. How is that to be done? Karl Marx, the Contributor philosopher, tells us that the process involves an interaction between exchange value and use value. Use value is determined by the current context, which in our case is the making of bread, and is therefore calculated within the Contingency loop. The only element of this circuit which we have not yet described as carrying out a function is Server analysis, and that is the strategy which performs the task of assigning the required use value - it determines what the object, in this case ‘flour,’ is good for, based on the current task sequence. Then, Server analysis turns around in the Sensing loop for which it does the pre-processing, and it mediates an exchange. We’ve already noticed that a neighbor has a bag of flour. Let’s suppose that he is making cake, and he needs sugar. I have an extra bag of sugar. He may agree to transfer the flour away from his left hemisphere ‘ready to hand’ to my right hemisphere ‘present at hand,’ so that I can use it, if I on my part will agree to make an equivalent exchange with the sugar.Now, that brings us to an important issue. What are the critical elements that need to be addressed in an exchange? For instance, if we examine an apartment rental contract, we’ll see that it requires an address, a rental price, a deposit amount, and a beginning date. There are spaces in the contract for us to fill those things in – mathematicians might think of it as a function statement. The rest of the rental contract is all fine print – a kind of ‘grayed-out’ assumed legal background. Which strategy in the mind decides what is foreground and what is assumed background, so that C(l) can choose without being overwhelmed by irrelevance? It is Server thought that does it, through its capacity of decision. You may recall that we already saw it in speech: Server strategy defines a speech envelope into which the other strategies insert their content. That’s also a matter of decision.OK, so my neighbor and I decide to exchange my sugar for his flour. How is the ownership actually altered? Perceiver strategy this time does it, by delinking the bag of flour from my neighbor’s being, and attaching it to my own being or Dasein. Sometimes a contract is signed, so as to involve the being of Dasein more explicitly. Perceiver conscience on its part seals the deal, and the result is enforced by society through restitutive or punitive law as necessary. How would we set a transfer price, if we wished to move beyond barter? Well, the left hemisphere and C(l) deal with adverbs, such as ‘too heavy,’ or ‘not enough’ – these emerge as things become ‘unready to hand.’ It’s the right hemisphere that operates with absolute numbers, such as ‘one bag of flour,’ or ‘five pounds of sugar’- these right hemisphere numbers allow the precise measurements required by the scientific method, even as the same right hemisphere also separates the observer from the thing which is to be observed, so that the resulting detached object may be exchanged for something else. The Sensing loop, for which Server strategy does the pre-processing, can now work out some right hemisphere exchange value as an absolute number, based upon the current subjective left hemisphere contextual use value.The exchange is made, and C(l) can relax again into an absorbed coping or dealing that releases the appropriate actions in the sequential action set which is the left hemisphere time-dependent interpretation of the right hemisphere spatially determined plan. In our case, we can begin to bake bread. Server analysis injects the particulars that adapt the stored Contingency habits to the current situation; its decisions shape Contributor will to the present circumstances, so that C(l) will remains relevant – in real time, that is, it supplements the adjustments made by a longer-range Weltanschauung. We can therefore make our bread successfully using the battered square pan which is currently available to us, along with the slightly bent spoon with which we must measure the salt. When left hemisphere Contributor C(l) has progressed all the way through the C(r) action sequence, C(l) will sense that the result is delicious; and left hemisphere F(l) can inform ‘me’ that ‘I’ am happy.What is ‘me’? Ah, that’s another question. It is composed of two major segments, and they are both located within Mercy strategy, and they interact with Dasein. Why must ‘me’ be separate from being? Well, if there were no being, then we could not coalesce as individuals into a social grouping. On the other hand, if there were no ‘me,’ then we could not address our group in the first person. We couldn’t say, “I would like to do this.” Rather, we’d be like the members of an ant colony.I remind you again that these two ‘me’s, and other issues, are discussed in the document orderedcomplexity.pdf, which can be viewed on our website at cognitivestyles.com.So, that’s an overview of the way in which the brain handles economics. The circuit, we can clearly see, is based in Dasein, and this core of being, unlike Kinship, is supplemented by Sensing and by Thinking. There’s a lot more to say about the calculation of efficiency, the formation of budgets, and the interaction of Dasein with Max Weber’s system of bureaucracy, but we’ll leave that for later.OK, let’s summarize some of what we have covered thus far in this episode. First, we distinguished consciousness from common sense, and presented two forms of being – Kinship and Dasein. Second, we analyzed the will and the way in which it coordinates both memory and logic, as well as action. Third, we discussed how the brain discerns what is true.Finally, we worked out mechanisms by which the mind extends action into economics, and implements an exchange of objects for a price.Let’s move now to history. I would like to remind us that there are some individuals – with the cognitive style of Contributor – who are conscious in the Dasein if-then circuit. They use it to explore contingency responses for every possible outcome, so that they are prepared to flexibly adapt the means for implementing long-term plans [A bibliography for the historical examples is appended to a previous episode]. Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “He devotes the same total attention to analyzing each successive problem as he does to any task, whether this is polishing up his scuba diving technique, or boning up on Tibetan culture in advance of his trip there.” “His mind is ordered, sequential, linear. When he’s reading, he never skips. When he’s analyzing a problem, he never slides past a part of the problem that seems unresolvable, nor fails to pursue to the uttermost limit all the consequences, political and intellectual, of any solution that comes to his own or to anyone else’s mind. ‘His ability to think things right through, to foresee the implications of proposals, was uncanny and unnerving.’ ” “He appears to enjoy resolving a problem in all its multiple economic, financial, constitutional, and political dimensions.” Of restructuring government: “I have the feeling of a mechanic who’s retuning a car or something, and getting the thing ready to go.” Charles Lindbergh, preparing for his flight across the Atlantic: “He carefully considered and solved every problem that might conceivably arise as his project advanced. He carried a notebook in which he listed the obstacles to his success, those thought of by himself and those suggested by others, then devised schemes for avoiding or overcoming these; not until a definite scheme had been worked out and steps taken to put it into effect did he scratch the listed obstacle from the book.” “President Franklin D. Roosevelt [an Exhorter] and Lindbergh were, in any case, antipathetical personalities, each having precisely those salient features most likely to irritate and outrage the other. Roosevelt’s willingness to act on important matters in the absence of a precise and detailed blueprint, and with only a vague concept of possible consequences, must arouse the very opposite of admiration in one who, like Lindbergh, made a fetish of preparation, carefully calculating all possible contingencies.” Arthur C. Clarke (Rendezvous with Rama, Ballantine Books, 1973): “Commander Norton did not really believe in luck; he never got into a situation until he had analyzed all the factors involved and had secured his line of retreat.” William O. Douglas: “Douglas was surgical in his interrogation. He was thoroughly prepared and knew exactly where he wanted to go. He went to the jugular but he did so with questions that were precise, sharp and surgical.” “The earmark of Douglas in those days was total preparation.” “Douglas did not fail often, and when he did he quickly looked for an explanation. If he found it and he had the power to change the results, he would. When his legs were weak from polio, Douglas prescribed the antidote—exercise—and doggedly took to the Yakima hills.” Bobby Fischer: “He is a tireless analyst, and in games which involved a great deal of detailed analysis, he lasted the pace better.” “Fischer prefers to rely on his own preparation and analysis.” “The ending is very largely a matter of exact calculation and determination and there is no better endgame player in the world than Fischer.” Alfred Hitchcock: “He turns all his energies to the preparation of a film, calculates everything in advance down to the last detail and throws himself totally into the meticulous realization of his plans.” Napoleon: “If I always seem ready to answer everything and to face everything, the reason is that before engaging in any enterprise I have given long thought to it and foreseen what might occur.” President Woodrow Wilson: “Calm uninterrupted thought was never a labor for his trained mind.” “One is considered queer in America if one requires time for concentrated thought.” “He always had a remedy for every political ailment, or he frankly told his students, ‘my mind is in debate,’ and when debate was ended, gave the conclusion.” George Mueller: “ ‘I am not a fanatic, or enthusiast, but, as all who know me are well aware, a calm, cool, quiet, calculating business man.’ At his death, the Western Daily Press stated, ‘His bearing and his speech were not those of an emotional enthusiast who would incur heavy liabilities with a light heart; indeed, had he been such a man, his life would have been less surprising than it was; it was his calmness and confidence, associated with the most careful watchfulness over expenditure and most business-like habits, that presented a combination of qualities altogether unique and wholly surprising.’ ” For the Contributor there are no probabilities: some conceivable event is either a risk and guarded against, or it is ignored—it can make him seem like a gambler to others. Charles Lindbergh as a student: “His friends had already been impressed by his complete independence of mind and spirit and by his tendency to regard every dangerous opportunity as a personal challenge—though the ‘game’ he played or the ‘code’ he followed seemed also to require that he calculate the risks carefully, employing mind and skill to reduce as much as possible (which was often not very much) the proportion of blind chance in the outcome of his adventures.” “Just before leaving college for flying school, it came into his head to hoist his motorcycle to the top of the campus ski lift, some 70 feet high, then ride down through screaming air to land on the slant and roar, if he remained upright, out onto the ice of Mendota. Like all such ideas, once it had entered his head it could not be got out again, either by himself or by the two half-disgusted friends to whom he confided it. He had calculated the chances carefully, he said; the thing could be done. All that deterred him was the problem of getting the machine to the top of the jump, and doubtless he would have solved this problem had not his attention been diverted to his plan to enter aviation.” P. T. Barnum: “With Jenny Lind, he wagered his fortune on his ability to draw great numbers of middle-class Americans to a form of entertainment to which they were unaccustomed.” “While willing to stake great sums of money on the success of ventures in his own line of business, he frequently carried caution to an extreme in making other investments [outside of his expertise].” Walt Disney: “His economic style: frugality in day-to-day matters, willingness to plunge on his own ideas...” Bill Durant: “Even those who did not always agree with his methods called him a genius, though they also sometimes called him a dictator and a gambler. He was all three.” “He was one hell of a gambler. To this day, I don’t know how he was able to handle it financially, but he did it.” “I felt confident, because of the hazardous nature of the automobile business, that if money in sufficient quantity could be obtained, a reasonable number of good companies could be induced to sell out or become members of a central organization that would provide engineering and patent protection and minimize the hazards which were constantly developing.” “He operated on a personal basis. He believed more in his own hunches than in the considered opinions of a staff of experts.” “I was constantly amazed by his daring ways of making a decision. Mr. Durant would proceed on a course of action guided solely, as far as I could tell, by some intuitive flash of brilliance. He never felt obliged to make an engineering hunt for facts. Yet at times he was astoundingly correct in his judgments.” John D. Rockefeller: “ ‘I had worn out the knees of my pants these days begging for credit.’ He went to bed wondering how he was going to repay a large sum he had borrowed and awoke wondering where he was going to borrow more.” Bobby Fischer: “One master said that ‘he seemed to lack a sense of danger’ in chess.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “His greatest achievement, beyond a doubt, is to have inspired Canadians to reach beyond ourselves, toward excellence. In a nation of life-insurers, he is a risk-taker.” Let’s step aside for a moment. If probabilities are not calculated within an operative Dasein if-then logic of market exchange and contingency planning, then where are they computed? We will discover later, when we examine the philosopher of Hume, that they are computed within the Approval loop, which is generated as Reason restricts itself to the right hemisphere. What is the sort of thing that is computed within Approval? It is a projection based upon repeatability: if the sun has always risen in previous mornings, then this circuit suggests that it will rise again tomorrow morning. It is not certain, but it sure is probable. The prediction can help iNtuition in its guess as to the identity of some object within C(r) – that’s also an aspect of probability.The Contributor without experience may ‘rush in where angels fear to tread’—and suffer accordingly. Bill Durant: “Kaufman said in 1927 that had Durant not become involved in the stock market, he would have then been worth $500 million and still be in charge of the corporation. But Durant had not created this empire by being prudent, or practical, or by listening to others. He had been daring, impulsive, erratic. He won big, and he lost big. But, on balance, he created what has become the largest industrial corporation in history.” His lawyer: “After Billy left Durant-Dort for Buick there were always too many ‘yes men’ around him for his own good. Dort and Nash and Aldrich and the rest of them in Durant-Dort could bring Billy down to earth. Away from them he just soared, high, wide and handsome.” P. T. Barnum: “At 30, all his business ventures had failed or been given up.” William O. Douglas: “He lost most of his meager savings in a speculative insurance venture and soon abandoned the insurance business altogether.” The Contributor who learns from his mistakes, and those of others, begins to calculate risks more accurately. Charles Lindbergh: “The army taught him to calculate risks more carefully and to curb his thrill-seeking propensities with sober judgment.” “As a flier, he began to abhor all vagueness, all imprecision of object or act or plan or utterance. Something within required a disciplined awareness of the world he lived in and a clear strategy for his operations upon it.” J. P. Morgan: “In his younger days Morgan enjoyed gambling in speculative enterprises—an interest he did not pursue in later years.” “He showed no signs [at age 27] of the extraordinary capacity for handling critical business situations which he later developed, but [his associates agreed] that he thought quickly in an emergency and acted promptly.” “His aptitudes developed only by degrees.” “He often went shopping without an adviser and made impetuous purchases; but his percentage of mistakes was very small. Experience was a good teacher.” Gilbert: “In Gilbert, there was a ceaseless warfare between daring and discretion; his natural bluntness was sharply counteracted by his sense of business; his violent temper was instantly followed by an assuaging charm.” P. T. Barnum: “He was altogether too shrewd and far-sighted to risk his own money on lotteries which it might bring, preferring to do everything he could to increase the amount of sales going through his hands and watch the accumulation of the certain ten percent which he retained for the service.” When all is analyzed, and circumstances have clarified, then a decision is made, and there are no doubts. President Woodrow Wilson: “The President had always been by nature highly conscientious. He was prone to postpone decisions on matters in which he saw a balance of opposing arguments. At times, as Colonel House observed, Wilson could act quickly and decisively. But sometimes there was so much to be said on both sides of an issue that he delayed decision, waiting unhappily for events to make evident where the ‘right’ lay.” “The pattern of decision making—replacing extreme uncertainty with extreme certainty—was characteristic of the man.” Alfred Hitchcock: “He rushes into nothing, but takes his time to test the ground, ‘audition’ the people concerned, and come up only when he is good and ready with his answer. But once he has decided, he commits himself completely to his decision.” “Once he decided, he acted speedily.” William Randolph Hearst: “He is a man of infinite resourcefulness and usually instantaneous decision. The larger the problem the more quickly his mind is made up.” Mark Twain: “When he made up his mind, he acted quickly.” Stephen Leacock: “He could make up his mind immediately.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “Pierre sees no shades of gray, only black or white.” Yasir Arafat: “Everything with him was black and white.” The Contributor is conscious in the if-them machinery of Dasein, and so he develops it most easily – it forms him often, as we have seen, into a decisive contingency planner. However, even in the Contributor, this area of the mind is not always developed; the result can be a corrosive indecisiveness. Pablo Picasso: “Of course he did suffer from some disease of the will, which made it impossible for him to make the slightest domestic decision. He would go into all the reasons that there were for taking action or for remaining passive in general, in particular, in this or that hypothetical case, and wound up by saying that since every action carried within it the seeds of its own degeneration, one was better off, in principle, not to act rather than to act, whenever there was a choice.”In the next episode, we’ll be discussing Immanuel Kant, who is generally considered to be the founder of modern philosophical thought. I’d like to demonstrate that Immanuel Kant, in his philosophy, is actually describing the structure of the human brain.That concludes episode 18. Thank you for listening. Less