This Page Is Currently In Near Final Stages Of Development:

Presented below is Most of the intended information. Additional content, as well as editing and needed reformatting for appearance will be posted here ASAP. Also the “Clickable Menu” is missing, yet to be added. And yet to be add at end, is a section titled “For Further Reading. These revisions will be posted here ASAP.

Please send an email if you have questions: For email address, click on "Contact Me", at the bottom of this page, or every ZMMQ Page.

Henry S Gurr ZMMQ SiteMaster. 1 June 2019, and 27 June 2022.XXXXXX .

Supplementary Information#4 for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works, Including Topics Of => Analogy, Metaphor, and Related Neural Cognitive Theories..

Articles & Books, Which Are Relevant To Henry S Gurr’s Proto Theory Panorama of How Our Mind Works.

This Page Is A Compilation Of Additional Information, Selected Because It Supports (or Is Relevant To) => SiteMaster Henry S Gurr’s Proto Theory of How Our Mind Works Click Here.

NOTE1: Readers Should Be Aware That There Are FOUR Continuation Pages Of “Supplementary Information” Which Are =>
…
1) Supplementary Information1, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
…
2) Supplementary Information2, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
…
3) Supplementary Information3, Featuring Professor James F Ross’ Book ‘Portraying Analogy’ … Which Very Much Is Working With “Metaphor” …. AND Is Relevant To (And Supports), Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.

4) Supplementary Information4, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works. This is the WebPage you are reading right now.

The Published Articles, Listed Below, On This Page You Are Reading Now => Were Selected Because Supports (Or Is Relevant To), Henry S Gurr’s Unified Panorama View Into How Our Mind Works.
… The Following Articles and Information were mostly found (and selected out of) Google Results Search, from wide variety of topic areas related to Mind, Consciousness, Brain Research, Neuron Physiology, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Theory, Etc. Eventually our search will be expanded to include The Citation Index , and also expand to Google Advanced search, where we look for WebPages, that are themselves link to valuable article, already discovered. These articles are presented somewhat in order of their discovery. Material copied directly from the various articles below is sometimes shown in “quote marks”. These articles are presented somewhat in order of their discovery.
DISCLAMER: There is no claim that this compilation is anywhere near to =>
a) Exhaustive, b) Has the most important information in these fields, c) Is presented in a logical order, d) Has a good choice of excerpts from these Google Found Documents, or e) Even has an adequate balance of topics covered.
…You will find that for each article, listed we have presented perhaps too much information, and trust you the reader, can select what is of interest, and skip otherwise. This information is presented for what it is worth, in hopes, that it will be useful and revealing to those who are Friends In Mind!
WHAT HAVE I LEARNED FROM ALL THESE WEBPAGES LISTED BELOW?:
... Strange to say, I have not learned much at all! These Researchers & Thinkers, each have their own starting point and from there go on to develop their own conclusions, none of which go in similar directions.- The results of each of these workers does not fit or support the works other workers. Thus, for me, there is no sense of emerging convergence on what are the better conclusions, or even the better ways to go.
... For the most part, there is nothing wrong with what they say: And I find much that supports (with no disagreement to) my Henry Gurr's “Explanation (Theory) How Our Mind Works”, and conversely

Organization and Format Of This Page
Tor Each Published Article Listed Below, You Will See:

A) “Now You See It: Our Brains Predict The Outcomes Of Our Actions, Shaping Reality Into What We Expect. That’s Why We See What We Believe.” By Daniel Yonis [Daniel Yonis a cognitive neuroscientist and experimental psychologist. He is a lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he heads a research lab investigating how our brains build models of ourselves and the world around us. ] '''
... ”One challenge that our brains face in monitoring our actions is the inherently ambiguous information they receive. We experience the world outside our heads through the veil of our sensory systems: the peripheral organs and nervous tissues that pick up and process different physical signals, such as light that hits the eyes or pressure on the skin. Though these circuits are remarkably complex, the sensory wetware of our brain possesses the weaknesses common to many biological systems: the wiring is not perfect, transmission is leaky, and the system is plagued by noise – much like how the crackle of a poorly tuned radio masks the real transmission. …. “
... ”But noise is not the only obstacle. Even if these circuits transmitted with perfect fidelity, our perceptual experience would still be incomplete. This is because the veil of our sensory apparatus picks up only the ‘shadows’ of objects in the outside world. To illustrate this, think about how our visual system works. When we look out on the world around us, we sample spatial patterns of light that bounce off different objects and land on the flat surface of the eye. This two-dimensional map of the world is preserved throughout the earliest parts of the visual brain, and forms the basis of what we see. But while this process is impressive, it leaves observers with the challenge of reconstructing the real three-dimensional world from the two-dimensional shadow that has been cast on its sensory surface. … “
... ”As it turns out, patterns of connectivity seen in the brain’s cortex – with massive numbers of backward connections from ‘higher’ to ‘lower’ areas – support these ideas. The concept informs an influential model of brain function known as hierarchical predictive coding, devised by the neuroscientist Karl Friston at University College London and his colleagues. This theory suggests that in any given brain region – for example, the early visual cortex – one population of neurons encodes the sensory evidence coming in from the outside world, and another set represents current ‘beliefs’ about what the world contains. Under this theory, perception unfolds as incoming evidence adjusts our ‘beliefs’, with ‘beliefs’ themselves determining what we experience. Crucially, however, the large-scale connectivity between regions makes it possible to use prior knowledge to privilege some ‘beliefs’ over others. This allows observers to use top-down knowledge to turn up the volume on the signals they expect, giving them more weight as perception unfolds.
... Allowing top-down predictions to percolate into perception helps us to overcome the problem of pace. By pre-activating parts of our sensory brain, we effectively give our perceptual systems a ‘head start’. Indeed, a recent study by the neuroscientists Peter Kok, Pim Mostert and Floris de Lange found that, when we expect an event to occur, templates of it emerge in visual brain activity before the real thing is shown. This head-start can provide a rapid route to fast and effective behaviour.”
https://aeon.co/essays/how-our-brain-sculpts-experience-in-line-with-our-expectations

B) “The Bizarre Science Behind How Our Brains Shape Reality: Do We See The World As It Really Is, Or Are We Creating Our Own Reality? We Delve Into The Neuroscience Behind The World That We Experience.” By Lisa Feldman-Barrett. March 22, 2023.
... ”So, your brain has a problem to solve, which philosophers call a ‘reverse inference problem’. Faced with ambiguous data, your brain must somehow guess the causes of that data as it plans what to do next, so it can keep you alive and well.”
... ”Fortunately, your brain has another source of information that can help with this task: memory. Your brain can draw on your lifetime of past experiences, some of which were similar to the present moment, to guess the meaning of the sense data.:
... ”A slammed door, rather than a fish tank, may well be the best candidate for a loud bang if, for example, there is a strong breeze blowing through a nearby window, or if your heartbroken lover has just stormed out of the room and you’ve experienced similar exits in past relationships.
... ”Your brain’s best guess – right or wrong – manifests itself as your action and everything you see, hear, smell, taste and feel in that moment. And this whirlwind of mental construction all happens in the blink of an eye, completely outside of your awareness.”
... ”The esteemed neuroscientist Gerald Edelman described daily experience as “the remembered present”. You might feel like you simply react to events that happen around you, but in fact, your brain constantly and invisibly guesses what to do next and what you will experience next, based on memories that are similar to the present moment.”
... ”A key word here is ‘similar’. The brain doesn’t need an exact match. If you saw Ariel the betta for the first time, your brain could guess that she’s a fish because you’ve seen similar fish before in bowls. Likewise, you have no trouble climbing a new, unfamiliar staircase because you’ve climbed staircases in the past. So similarity is enough for your brain to help you survive and thrive in the world.”
Click Here For The Entire Science Focus Article.

C) “Closer To The Truth: Robert Lawrence Kuhn Interviews Professor Alva Noe On The Workings Of Our Mind & Consciousness.” [Professor Noe Nicely Steps Around The Question Of Is There A Soul Or A Spirit That Runs Our Bodies. Noe Says This Older Way Of Thinking Can’t Help Our Understanding Of Mind & Consciousness, And Neither Can Physics Or Magic. Noe emphasizes that we are a person, with hope & cares, skills abilities & things we wonder about. The person is the fundamental category. ]
... Two Opening Statements From The Video Transcript =>
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
... Alva, everything that my self cries out to be is some sort of a soul. Certainly religious upbringing maintains that feeling. Everything that I’ve learned in neuroscience, through my early career as a scientist, tells me that that’s absurd, that only the material is real. How can a philosopher begin to look at this question about a person being, at least in part, a soul or a spirit?
Professor Alva Noë
... Well, I find it very difficult to start with – even to start with your question, because I just don’t see the obstacle. I don’t – don’t see the problem. It’s certainly true that there are – there’s nothing that science is teaching us about how we are that supports different religious fables about what we’re supposed to be. Magic is not substantiated in science, or in philosophy. But putting those fighting words aside, I see that precisely what we’re doing here. We, scientists and thinkers trying to understand the nature of consciousness, is to try to understand what a person is. And a person is not a brain. A person’s not even a brain in a body. A person is a living being, with thoughts and feelings and hopes and aspirations and commitments, bearer of memories, and so on.
https://closertotruth.com/video/noeal-001/

D) “Analogy as the Core of Cognition.” By Suan Yang, December 13, 2014.
What exactly is going on when you think? In his lecture, Analogy as the Core of Cognition, cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter (DH) suggests that when you think, you are really just making analogies. [And thinking the connected relationships, using the associative power of your mind.
https://astudentforever.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/analogy-as-the-core-of-cognition/
Other thoughts on analogy =>
… The Mother Lode Of Invention Dan Jones Compares Three Studies On The Origins And Fruits Of Human Creativity.”
... ”Locating the wellsprings of creativity is a challenge on a par with teasing apart the origins of consciousness. Ecologist E. O. Wilson, however, has a simple starting point. In The Origins of Creativity, his 30th book, he declares that we as a species are defined by creativity — an “innate quest for originality” driven by an “instinctive love of novelty”. The idea is echoed in The Runaway Species, by composer Anthony Brandt and neuroscientist David Eagleman, a lively exploration of the software our brains run in search of the mother lode of invention.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/550034a.pdf?origin=ppub

E) “Honing Theory: A Complex Systems Framework For Creativity.” By Liane Gabora, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia. Published in Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, And Life Sciences, 21(1), 35-88. (2017)
Abstract:
… This paper proposes a theory of creativity, referred to as honing theory, which posits that creativity fuels the process by which culture evolves through communal exchange amongst minds that are self-organizing, self-maintaining, and self-reproducing. According to honing theory, minds, like other selforganizing systems, modify their contents and adapt to their environments to minimize entropy. Creativity begins with detection of high psychological entropy material, which provokes uncertainty and is arousalinducing. The creative process involves recursively considering this material from new contexts until it is sufficiently restructured that arousal dissipates. Restructuring involves neural synchrony and dynamic binding, and may be facilitated by temporarily shifting to a more associative mode of thought. A creative work may similarly induce restructuring in others, and thereby contribute to the cultural evolution of more nuanced worldviews. Since lines of cultural descent connecting creative outputs may exhibit little continuity, it is proposed that cultural evolution occurs at the level of self-organizing minds; outputs reflect their evolutionary state. Honing theory addresses challenges not addressed by other theories of creativity, such as the factors that guide restructuring, and in what sense creative works evolve. Evidence comes from empirical studies, an agent-based computational model of cultural evolution, and a model of concept combination.
KEYWORDS: complex adaptive system, cultural evolution, psychological entropy, restructuring, selforganized criticality.”
... ”Creativity is central to cognition, and one of our most human traits. It plays an important role in abilities such as planning, problem solving, and story telling, and has given rise to art, science, and technology. It allows us to imagine beyond the present to reconstruct the past or fantasize about the future. The Mona Lisa, the roller coaster, and the stock market all reflect the ingenuity of the human mind. Our capacity to innovate, build on one another’s inventions, and adapt them to our own needs and tastes, has transformed this planet. Creativity refers to the process by which new and valued or appropriate outputs are generated (e.g., inventions or poems), and individuals who generate such outputs are said to be creative. Over the last halfcentury studies have revealed that creativity is correlated with personality traits such as norm-doubting, tolerance of ambiguity, and openness to experience (Barron, 1969; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Eysenck, 1993; Feist, 1998; Martindale & Daily, 1996), and with activation of particular brain networks (Vartanian, Bristol, & Kaufman, 2013) and related in interesting ways to culture (Lubart, 1990), family birth order (Bliss, 1970; Sulloway, 1996), and a sense of complete absorption or ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.02484.pdf

F) “Polytropy” Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη” By David Pierce, who says “The name of this blog comes from the Greek tagline, which is the beginning of Homer’s Odyssey. Used to describe Odysseus, the adjective polytropos means “turning many ways.” That is how the blog may be.” [This is a good article about the in’s & out’s of CREATIVITY that quotes good words of Pirsig => “craftsmanship can only imitate but not create”, and “An instructor often gets the feeling that he could spend the rest of his life telling the student what he wanted and never get anywhere precisely because the student is trying to produce what the instructor wants rather than what is good. ”, ]
Important Excerpt =>
... My concern is the mystery of our creativity. I have tried to say why recognizing it is essential to education. In mathematics, when given the exercise of proving a particular statement, some students go to the web to find a previously written proof. In an earlier day, they went to the library. This was not what had been intended by the exercise. Nonetheless, it is what some of my classmates did in graduate school. I confess to having made use of their labor. For an exercise that I had not been able to solve alone, I read a published proof that my classmates had found. I then wrote out what I would call my own proof, based on the understanding that I had derived from reading. Some classmates must have just copied from the book, without understanding; for the teacher (Jeffrey Adams) complained about this in class (and said he was not giving them credit).
https://polytropy.com/2022/06/06/creativity/

G) “From Complexity To Creativity: Explorations In Evolutionary, Autopoietic, and Cognitive Dynamics.” By Ben Goertzel. Aug 28, 2007 376 pages. [ I Henry Gurr, don[t know if this book is good and valid, however what catches my attention is at the .last of this books Introduction, which is the paragraph that starts with => Finally in Chapter Fifteen … Please scroll down to, and give it your attention. => ]
Important Excerpt =>
… ”Finally, the last three chapters, constituting Part IV, turn to the difficult and imprecise, but very rewarding, topic of human personality. Chapter Thirteen reviews the notion of the dissociated self, and argues that a self is in fact a multi-part dynamical system. The essence of human personality, it is argued, lies in the dynamics of various subselves. Martin Buber's distinction between I-You and I-It interactions is reformulated in terms of emergent pattern recognition, and it is argued that healthy personalities tend to display I-You interactions between their various subselves.
… In Chapter Fourteen, applications to the theory of romantic love and the theory of masochism are outlined. These applications are sketchy and suggestive they are not intended as complete psychoanalytic theories. The point, however, is to indicate how ideas from complexity science, as represented in the psynet model, can be seen to manifest themselves in everyday psychological phenomena. The same dynamics and emergent phenomena that are seen in simple physical systems, are seen at the other end of the spectrum, in human thought-feeling-emotion complexes.
Finally, in Chapter Fifteen, the nature of creativity is analyzed, in a way that incorporates the insights of all the previous chapters. The theory applies to either human or computer creativity (although, up to this point of history, no computer program has ever manifested even a moderate degree of creativity, as compared to the human mind). The existence of a dissociated "creative subself" in "highly creative people" is posited, and the dynamics of this creative subself is modeled in terms of the psynet model and the genetic algorithm. The experience of "divine inspiration" often associated with creativity is understood as a result of a consciousness-producing "perceptual-cognitive loop" forming part of a greater emergent pattern. In general, previous complex systems models are seen as manifestations of particular aspects of the complex creative process. Creativity, the wellspring of complexity science and all science, is seen to require all of complexity science, and more, for its elucidation.”
[Below you will see the complete “Contents”, so you can tell what is in this book titled => “From Complexity To Creativity: Explorations In Evolutionary, Autopoietic, and Cognitive Dynamics.” ]
CONTENTS
Part I. The Complex Mind-Brain
Chapter 1. Dynamics, Evolution, Autopoiesis 1.1. Introduction
1.2. Attractors
1.3. The Genetic Algorithm
1.4. Magician Systems
1.5. Dynamics and Pattern
Chapter 2. The Psynet Model....
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Dual Network
2.3. Evolution and Autopoiesis in the Dual Network
2.4. Language and Logic.....
2.5. Psynet AI.....
2.6. Conclusion
Appendix 1: The Psynet Model as Mathematics Appendix 2: Formal Definition of the Dual Network
Chapter 3. A Theory of Cortical Dynamics
3.1. Introduction .....
3.2. Neurons and Neural Assemblies.
3.3. The Structure of the Cortex
3.4. A Theory of Cortical Dynamics
3.5. Evolution and Autopoiesis in the Brain 3.6. Conclusion...
Chapter 4. Perception and Mindspace Curvature
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Producibility and Perception...
4.3. The Geometry of Visual Illusions 4.4. Mindspace Curvature... 4.5. Conclusion...

Part II. Formal Tools for Exploring Complexity

Chapter 5. Dynamics and Pattern
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Symbolic Dynamics
5.3. Generalized Baker Maps
5.4. The Chaos Language Algorithm...
5.5. Order and Chaos in Mood Fluctuations
5.6. Two Possible Principles of Complex Systems Science ....
5.7. Symbolic Dynamics in Neural Networks 5.8. Dynamics, Pattern and Entropy.

Chapter 6. Evolution and Dynamics.
6.1. Introduction ....
6.2. The Dynamics of the Genetic Algorithm 6.3. The Simple Evolving Ecology (SEE) Model 6.4. The Search for Strange Attractors..... 6.6. Evolving Fractal Music .
Part II. Formal Tools for Exploring Complexity

Chapter 7. Magician Systems and Abstract Algebras 7.1. Introduction ....
7.2. Magician Systems and Genetic Algorithms 7.3. Random Magician Systems.....
7.4. Hypercomplex Numbers and Magician Systems
7.5. Emergent Pattern....
7.6. Algebra, Dynamics and Complexity
7.7. Some Crucial Conjectures.
7.8. Evolutionary Implications

Part III. Mathematical Structures in the Mind

Chapter 8. The Structure of Consciousness
8.1. Introduction ....
8.2. The Neuropsychology of Consciousness

Chapter 10. Dream Dynamics
10.1. Introduction
10.2. Testing the Crick-Mitchison Hypothesis
10.3. A Mental Process Network Approach 10.4. Dreaming and Crib Death.
Chapter 11. Artificial Selfhood
11.1. Introduction...
11.4. Artificial Intersubjectivity
Chapter 12. The World Wide Brain
12.1. Introduction
12.2. The World Wide Brain in the History of Computing
12.3. Design for a World Wide Brain .....
12.4. The World Wide Brain as a New Phase in
Psycho-Cultural Evolution....
Part IV. The Dynamics of Self and Creativity
Chapter 13. Subself Dynamics
13.1. Introduction
13.2. Subselves
13.3. I-It and I-You..
13.4. The Fundamental Principle of Personality Dynamics.. 307
13.5. Systems Theory as a "Bridge"...
Chapter 14. Aspects of Human Personality Dynamics
14.1. Introduction.....
14.2. The Laws of Love...
14.3. The Development and Dynamics of Masochism..... 332

H “Cognitive Science: Mind As Mirror.” By Philip Ball, Nature volume 496, pages424–425, April 24, 2013. [ From his good understanding of how we humans use analogy, Philip Ball goes on to say how much Douglas Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander, miss the mark is their book titled => “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking”. I Henry Gurr agree, an add that we essentially learn nothing about the important aspects of what dictionary’s and most people consider Analogy, from this book, or from any of Hofstadter’s works. ]
… This WebPage is Subtitled => 'Philip Ball Gets Under The Skin Of [Hofstadter & Sander’s] A Treatise On The Brain As An Analogy Machine.: '' and says=>
... Analogies are the bread and butter … of the visual, literary and theatrical arts, although the authors seem curiously unconcerned about any of these except poetry. Yet Hofstadter and Sander are really inverting that usual picture: art is not a producer of analogies, but a product of our analogical brains.
... These authors [Hofstadter & Sander] focus most on the use of analogy in language. Moving steadily from words to phrases and narratives, they show just how deeply embedded is our tendency to generalize, compare, categorize and forge links. Individual examples seem trivial until you realize their ubiquity: tables have legs, melodies are haunting, time is discussed in spatial terms, and idioms are invariably analogical, if you get my drift. Thus the lexical precision on which dictionaries seem to insist is illusory — words are always standing in for other words, their boundaries malleable. This flexibility extends to our actions: we see that a spoon can serve as a knife when no knife is available. (Indeed, the spoon then becomes a knife — objects may be fixed, but their labels aren't.)
... These arguments can be carried too far. Is to extrapolate to make an analogy, expecting the future to be like the past? Is a Freudian slip an analogy, or mere crosstalk of neural circuits? Is convention an analogy (why don't we write mc2 = E?)? Can we, in fact, turn any mental process into an analogy, by that very process of analogy? These are not rhetorical questions: one might, in principle, examine whether the same neural circuitry is involved in each case, for example. But a lack of interest in a neuroscientific examination of the authors' idea is one of the book's irksome lacunae.
... In fact, this intriguing, frustrating book seems to exist almost in an intellectual vacuum. Unless one combs through the bibliography, one could mistakenly imagine that it is the first attempt to explore the idea of analogy and metaphor in linguistics, overlooking the work of Raymond Gibbs, Andrew Ortony, Esa Itkonen and many others. And one is forced to take an awful lot on trust. When, for example, Hofstadter and Sander describe the evolution of the concept of 'mother' in the mind of a child as he or she learns to generalize from experience, they offer a plausible story, but no empirical evidence for the developmental pathway they describe.
... Neither is there any real explanation of why we think this way. Isn't it perhaps, in part, a way of minimizing the mental resources we need to engage in a situation, to avoid having to start from scratch with every unfamiliar encounter, object or perspective? Is it an adaptive technique for making predictions? Are mirror neurons part of a built-in cognitive apparatus for analogizing ourselves into others' shoes?
... The lack of historical perspective is also a problem; it is as if people always thought as they do now. Analogy was arguably all we once had for navigating experience, for example in the Neoplatonic idea of correspondences, “As above, so below.” This “just as ... so ...” thinking remains at the root of pseudoscience as well as science: the Moon influences the tides, so why not our body fluids? In which case, how do we distinguish between good and bad analogies?
... There are gems of insight in Surfaces and Essences, but again these are flawed by the authors' relaxed attitude towards evidence.
https://www.nature.com/articles/496424a

I) “From Wikipedia => Richard Langton Gregory (1923 - 2010) was a British psychologist and Professor of Neuropsychology at the University of Bristol. [Much of Professor Gregory’s work, and that of other Gestaltists. Very well fits Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, '' and conversely. ]
... In 1981, he founded The Exploratory, a hands-on science centre in Bristol, the first of its kind in the UK.[6][7] In 1989, he was appointed Osher Visiting Fellow of the Exploratorium, a similar scientific education centre in San Francisco, California.
Gregory has called Hermann von Helmholtz one of his major inspirations.
... He appeared on, or was an advisor to, numerous science-related television programmes in the UK and worldwide. His particular interest was in optical illusions and what these revealed about human perception. He wrote and edited several books, notably Eye and Brain and Mind in Science.
... In 1967, he delivered the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on The Intelligent Eye.
Contribution
... Gregory's main contribution to the discipline was in the development of cognitive psychology, in particular that of "Perception as hypotheses", an approach which had its origin in the work of Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894) and his student Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920). Between them, the two Germans laid the basis of investigating how the senses work, especially sight and hearing.
... According to Gregory, Helmholtz should take the credit for realising that perception is not just a passive acceptance of stimuli, but an active process involving memory and other internal processes.
... Gregory progressed this idea with a key analogy. The process whereby the brain puts together a coherent view of the outside world is analogous to the way in which the sciences build up their picture of the world, by a kind of hypothetico-deductive process.
...
Gregory's ideas ran counter to those of the American direct realist psychologist J. J. Gibson, whose 1950 The Perception of the Visual World was dominant when Gregory was a younger man. Much in Gregory's work can be seen as a reply to Gibson's ideas, and as the incorporation of explicitly Bayesian concepts into the understanding of how sensory evidence is combined with pre-existing ("prior") beliefs.[14] Gregory argued that optical illusions, such as the illusory contours in the Kanizsa triangle, demonstrated the Bayesian processing of perceptual information by the brain.
... Wikipedia Here Shows Photo: Kanizsa triangle showing illusory contours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gregory

J) “The Process Ontology of Whitehead’s Metaphysics.” By Ian Glendinning, Nov 10, 2019. [Ian Glendinning discusses Alfred North Whitehead's difficult to read book "Process & Reality”: This book fits the larger field of knowledge called Process Philosophy, which in turn is the philosophy arena closest to Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, and conversely.]
Opening Paragraph
... I’m beginning to realise that in the UK philosophical canon Whitehead took up the radical empirical monism I associate with James, Bergson, Northrop and Pirsig, and which is seeing a resurgence in those increasingly rejecting a material metaphysics underlying the physical world.
Skip A Paragraph
... I rejected Whitehead initially, because of his mathematical associations with Russell and the fact Russell never really got Wittgenstein. Thanks to Goff and Mumford at Durham Uni I was prompted to revisit Russell’s metaphysical ruminations, as I am now doing with Whitehead (courtesy of long-term Psybertron commenter A J Owens). I went straight for his “Process and Reality” – his most developed metaphysical treatise and have not read his earlier more accessible writings first-hand.
... Having read the whole of it and, as warned, finding the bulk of it hard-going linguistically, I keep coming back to the opening chapters, which lay his ontology bare, before he embarks on a tour-de-force comparative philosophology reviewing his ideas against those of Locke, Hume, Mill, Kant et al whilst acknowledging his drawing on James and Bergson.
... In fact, I’ve read and re-read the opening chapters with increasing awe and a yellow highlighter about 4 or 5 times in the last couple of weeks of travel and hotels.
... Long story short: Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism – is a process-based reality, since the fundamental notions are the events occasioned by the coming together of experience of one with another.
https://www.psybertron.org/archives/13757

HsgSee3ExixtingSupplmWebPagesTooLargeThusStart4th: Edit additions ~5-15May24.
File = PoThPgSuppt4v06
PrevFile = PoThPgSuppt4v01 StartNuBcuzOthersTooBig+GgBkComplexityCreativityArcvd