This Page Is Now Ready For Study.

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, 27 June 2022, 15 May 2024. and June 18 2026.

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

Articles & Books, Which Are Relevant To Henry S Gurr’s Proto Theory 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 View Into How Our Mind Works.
…
2) Supplementary Information2, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified 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 View Into How Our Mind Works.

4) Supplementary Information4, for Henry S Gurr’s Unified 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 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 that 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 HENRY GURR, LEARNED FROM 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 is 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’s Interview With World Renowned Neuroscience Researcher, Professor Alva Noe On => The Workings Of Our Mind & Consciousness.”
...
[In this Video Interview: 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 Above Mentioned Video =>
Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Says To Professor Alva Noe This =>
... 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 Replies =>
... “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.” ]
[Yes, this above is what Hofstadter says: HOWEVER, what Hofstadter calls (and means) when he says “Analogy” is his own special meaning, which is NOT any where close to what dictionaries say!! ]
https://astudentforever.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/analogy-as-the-core-of-cognition/
[For A Good Treatise On PROPER Use Analogy, Please Read
... A Study Of Analogy, Metaphors, And Metaphoric Bridge Connections (MBC), That Are Found In Robert Pirsig’s Book “Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance” . (ZMM) (1975). Click Here.

Thoughts On Creativity =>
… [ In Article “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://web.archive.org/web/20221206181509/https://www.nature.com/articles/550034a.pdf

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, such as => “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) BOOK: “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 Excerpts =>
… ”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 “Table of 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 agrees, and adds that we essentially learn nothing about the important aspects of what dictionary’s and most people consider “Analogy”, from any of Hofstadter’s works, including the above-mentioned book. ]
… This WebPage is Subtitled => “ “Philip Ball Gets Under The Skin Of [Hofstadter & Sander’s Book => ] “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 Gestalt Psychologists. Very well fits Henry Gurr’s “Explanation (Theory) of How Our Mind Works”, '' and conversely. ]
... “In 1981, Gregory founded “The Exploratory,” a hands-on science centre in Bristol, the first of its kind in the UK. 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.”
... “Gregory 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.”
... Click Here For Entire Wikipedia Article, Which Also Shows Photo:Of => Kanizsa triangle showing illusory contours.

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

K) From Wikipedia: Alfred North Whitehead (15 February 1861 – 30 December 1947)
... was an …:”English mathematician and philosopher. He created the philosophical school known as process philosophy,[2] which has been applied in a wide variety of disciplines, including ecology, theology, education, physics, biology, economics, and psychology.
In his early career Whitehead wrote primarily on mathematics, logic, and physics. He wrote the three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), with his former student Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematical logic, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.
Beginning in the late 1910s and early 1920s, Whitehead gradually turned his attention from mathematics to philosophy of science, and finally to metaphysics. He developed a comprehensive metaphysical system which radically departed from most of Western philosophy. Whitehead argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.[4] Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly “Process and Reality – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy.”
... “Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us."[4] For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in the 21st century has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics pioneered by John B. Cobb.”
... [Skip Pararaphs]
Philosophy And Metaphysics
…”Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life, he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter."[62] Ironically, in later life, Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians.
However, interest in metaphysics – the philosophical investigation of the nature of the universe and existence – had become unfashionable by the time Whitehead began writing in earnest about it in the 1920s. The ever-more impressive accomplishments of empirical science had led to a general consensus in academia that the development of comprehensive metaphysical systems was a waste of time because they were not subject to empirical testing.”
... “Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one of his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized."[64] In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles",[65] he argued that people need to continually reimagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason, Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy.[66]
… Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favour of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental.[68] Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as the "philosophy of organism," but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy.
Whitehead's philosophy was highly original, and soon garnered interest in philosophical circles. After publishing The Concept of Nature in 1920, he served as president of the Aristotelian Society from 1922 to 1923, and Henri Bergson was quoted as saying that Whitehead was "the best philosopher writing in English."[69] So impressive and different was Whitehead's philosophy that in 1924 he was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age.[24]
Eckhart Hall at the University of Chicago. Beginning with the arrival of Henry Nelson Wieman in 1927, Chicago's Divinity School become closely associated with Whitehead's thought for about thirty years.”
…”This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the Western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centres around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality:”

For Complete Wikipedia Article About Alfred North Whitehead, Click Here.

J) Partial PreView Version Of => '' “ Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Volume 1, edited by Michel Weber and Will Desmond . ----
... { NOTE: In an email, Professor David Stoney, recommended this WebPage,.from which. Henry Gurr places below, some of the more interesting passages, which are in the Introduction.

... As a mathematician Whitehead does not shy away from the constructive part of the philosophical enterprise. He knows that a philosophical system does not pre-exist. It cannot be found “ready made,” waiting for its discovery. It is rather the result of the endeavour to grasp the general in the particular: a philosophical system has to be created, the best one can.

... The collection of articles that Hartshorne wrote about Whitehead's Philosophy (Selected Essays, 1935–1970, published in 1972) are even today an introduction to Whitehead “without pain.” Yet, the fact that Hartshorne was teaching mainly philosophical theology accounts for the fact that the process movement caught fire above all at Theology Faculties (Chicago, Claremont).

... Science and the Modern World constitutes Whitehead's earliest careful exploration of the everlasting ontological problem—how to understand the “coming-to-be and passing-away” of actualities? Here he underlines his special indebtedness to S. Alexander and C. L. Morgan. The pure phenomenological standpoint of his previous period is no longer satisfactory, as it leads to the deepening of the event/object polarity with the actual occasion/eternal object polarity. On the one hand, the phenomenological continuous transition is so to speak atomized in ontological units of experience (“epochs”); on the other, the quasi-Platonic notion of eternal object embodies general potentialities. Moreover, the axiomatization of the process of actualization asks for a threefold immanent “principle of limitation” working together with a transcenden t immanent “Principle of Concretion”—God—grounding value and order in an eventful universe

... Whitehead introduces “symbolic reference,” which is the conscious synthetic activity whereby the two pure modes are “fused into one perception” (S 18). To mistake a square tower for a round one is to misinterpret what is actually given to us: although what is seen is undoubtedly a roundish object, the tower is indeed square and this fact cannot but be conveyed by causal efficacy. “Direct experience is infallible. What you have experienced, you have experienced” (S 6). The mistake lies in the conscious judgment claiming that this tower is round. His answer to Hume (and Descartes) is thus the following. Although it is with good reason that the Scot criticizes perception in the mode of presentational immediacy, his reduction of all possible perception to sensory perception (restricted to the five Introduction 23 senses) is mistaken. In sum: conscious perception is understood as “the symbolic interplay between two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world.”2

... [Whitehead’s book] “Process and Reality” (being the Gifford Lectures of 1927–1928, published in December 1929)25 disrupts RM’s threefold Platonic framework by reorienting it around the concept of “creativity.” Although Process and Reality constitutes Whitehead's most imposing work, undoubtedly the acme of his speculations, it was—and is still—badly received and drastically misunderstood. Actually, Whitehead wrote to his son North: “I do not expect a good reception from professional philosophers.”26 As a matter of fact, the Lectures were a debacle, and the book itself is usually fragmented in order to make it sizeable for hurried readers. It constitutes of five strictly interdependent parts: I. “The Speculative Scheme;” II. “Discussions and Applications;” III. “The Theory of Prehensions;” IV. “The Theory of Extension;” and V. “Final Interpretation.” Part One includes the famous “categoreal scheme” that is “practically unintelligible” unless studied along with the rest of the book. Part Two (which is the weakest) mainly studies the Classics and Kant from the perspective of its reformed subjectivism. Part Three analyses “genetically” the coming into existence of new actualities. Part Four analyses “coordinately” the being of actualities (and defines straight lines without reference to measurement). Part Five reinterprets the ontological system so far adumbrated, starting with the rebalancing of the God/World relationship. The ill-success of Process and Reality seems to have suggested a renewal of the expository style of Science and the Modern World. Adventures of Ideas (1933) elucidates the main categories of Process and Reality with the help of a vast picture of the major ideas haunting civilizations. We have here not only a philosophy of history emphasizing the concept of persuasion, but also an assessment of the impact of the scientific worldview on European culture and a renewed exposition of the ontology of process. According to the philosopher, a civilized society is to exhibit the qualities of Truth, Beauty, Adventure, Art, and Peace. See especially on this Allan and Henning entries, respectively in Parts II and VII of this volume.

... Whitehead shows, with the help of the concepts of importance, interest, discrimination and perspective, that there is a continuous gradient from the infinite unity or connexity of all events to the individual, finite, selectiveness of enjoyment of conscious actualities. By the same token, he insists on the difference between intuition, thought, and language and contrasts the sheer, vibrant disclosure of stubborn facts with their symbolization in science, philosophy, poetry and mysticism. Ideals can mask the concrete, well placed abstractions never. “Autobiographical Notes,” “Immortality,” and “Mathematics and the Good,” first published in the Schilpp volume devoted to The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1941; reprinted in his 1947 Essays in Science and Philosophy), constitute his last major publications. All three make the same plea for relativism in PR’s reformed sense of the term and for its direct correlates pattern and rhythm. First of all, Whitehead makes clear that his thought has always been anchored in his vivid knowledge of history and in plain conversation, both commonsensical and technical, with colleagues, students and friends. Second, the Uni-verse is understood as the interplay between two “Worlds,” the World of Active Creativity and the World of Timeless Value. The former is the World of origination of patterns of assemblage that nevertheless develops Enduring Personal Identity. The latter is timeless and immortal, but it nevertheless seeks Realization. In sum: neither finitude nor infinitude are self-supporting; fact and value require each other—and “exactness is a fake.”32

... If logical harmony invokes a sense of the “iron necessity” of law, aesthetic harmony invokes “a living ideal moulding the general flux in its broken progress toward finer, subtler issues” (SMW 18). The cosmos needs both the power to achieve stable order and the power to transform it into some better order. It is a realm of adjusted values mutually intensifying and destroying what has been achieved, a dynamic interplay of established law and rebellious innovation.
... …. ***skip several lines ***
... Concrescence, says Whitehead, is “aesthetic synthesis” (PR 212). It begins with the nascent occasion’s physical prehensions of the given world, prehensions that are as richly varied as the world. The challenge is for the concrescence to make from this multitude of prehensions a new well-ordered distinctive unity, to reconcile a many, to synthesize a one.
... The Categoreal Obligations explain how such a synthesis is possible (PR 26-28, 247-55). The first, the Category of Subjective Unity, stipulates the logical condition for harmony: that the diverse, as-yet unintegrated prehensions belonging to incomplete phases of the process of concrescence are nonetheless “compatible for integration by reason of the unity of their subject” (PR 26). The fourth and fifth categories, Conceptual Valuation and Conceptual Reversion, are concerned with the origination of the novel possibilities needed to effect the concrete harmony promised by the logical condition set forth in the first category. The sixth and seventh categories, Transmutation and Subjective Harmony, stipulate the conditions governing how that promise can be realized, how incompatibilities can be modulated into contrasts and an actual harmony produced. When Whitehead elaborates on

... A similar mistake plagues education. In the second and third chapters of The Aims of Education, Whitehead argues that there is a rhythm to the learning process, one that cycles through three stages: romance, precision, and generalization. He chastises educators for beginning—and ending—with precision, prizing only what is clear and distinct, what is capable of being organized systematically. Before students can be expected to find the discipline of careful analysis worthwhile, they need to have an opportunity to exercise their imagination and curiosity, to follow out “unexplored connexions with possibilities half-disclosed by glimpses Cosmological and Civilized Harmonies 47 and half-concealed by the wealth of material” (AE 17). This stage of romance is an aesthetic stage, because it emphasizes direct experience and interconnection. We must begin with what is concrete and therefore open-ended. Experiencing things for the first time—looking through a telescope, going to an opera, attending a town meeting—is vividly thrilling because these experiences are overflowing with import, their content as yet unbounded by the requirements of disciplined understanding. Students are better served reading Plato’s dialogues, even in translation, than by reading a textbook in which someone systematically explicates at secondhand what Plato said or meant (AE 74). Romance should lead naturally to precision as students, wanting to know more about what they find important, willingly acquire the methodological tools of analytic inquiry and learn to relate their growing knowledge to established theories and other bodies of fact. Star-gazing motivates a student to study astronomy; opera going, to take voice lessons or enroll in a music course; experiencing local politics, to stand for political office; reading Meno in English, to become competent in classical Greek. Generalization, Whitehead’s third stage of education, returns students from the abstractions of the disciplinary competence they have achieved to the immediacy of the romantic. Now they come equipped, however, with the tools of their disciplines. The innovative thinker, the creative artist, and the effective leader are all able to transcend established routines—pushing beyond normal science, acceptable styles, and practical good sense. They can do so because they have not only mastered the established techniques but are aware of the limitations of those techniques, aware of the unrealized alternatives and unexplored possibilities they necessarily exclude. Education, Whitehead argues, is “the guidance of the individual towards a comprehension of the art of life,” by which he means “the most complete achievement of varied activities expressing the potentialities of that living creature in the face of its actual environment” (AE 39). It requires an “artistic sense”: knowing how best to subordinate our lower to our higher possibilities. The practice of the art of life begins with wonder, curiosity, and reverence, progresses to the development of self-discipline, and finds its fruition in effecting through our own initiative an outcome better than what we had previously achieved. The habit of this way of responding to circumstances allows us to achieve in our lives “the sense of beauty, the aesthetic sense of realised perfection” that is our fulfillment as persons (AE 40). As with all great artistic creation, such an individual life always points beyond itself, to possibilities it has not realized, to values that transcend even as they inform its own finite accomplishments. The art of life is to make of one’s life a work of art.

...
Whitehead’s metaphysical goal was undeniably systematic and began “from below,” thus placing him in the first camp. Yet while Whitehead accepts that our discovery of reality begins with “the order of dawning,” that is, with the appearance of experience in consciousness, he rejects the notion that this is where metaphysics itself must begin (PR 162). Instead, he follows a more classical approach, asking questions with a much larger scope than the anthropological, and attempting to create a system that encompasses anthropology as a particular case

NOTE: The Above AND The Below, UNDERLINED, agree well with Henry Gurr’s Theory (Explanation) Of How Our Mind Works.

they constitute a major avenue to unearth the presuppositions of our author and of his Zeitgeist. With regard to this, Whitehead wittily remarks: When you are criticising the philosophy of an epoch, do not chiefly direct your attention to those intellectual positions which its exponents feel it necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental assumptions which adherents of all the variant systems within the epoch unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them (SMW 48).45 To become aware of such a set of (possibly unconsciously) presupposed fundamental assumptions constitutes a necessary hermeneutical step. In philosophical parlance , this is the question of doxa, whose study reveals mainly two types of data: contingent and necessary ones, the latter leading straight to our second reason. Second, insights of past authors are of exceptional interest: Plato's contribution to the basic notions connecting Science and Philosophy, as finally settled in the later portion of his life, has virtues entirely different from that of Aristotle, although of equal use for the progress of thought. It is to be found by reading together the Theætetus, the Sophist, the Timæus, and the fifth and tenth books of the Laws; and then by recurrence to his earlier work, the Symposium. He is never entirely self-consistent, and rarely explicit and devoid of ambiguity. He feels the difficulties, and expresses his perplexities. No one could be perplexed over Aristotle’s classifications; whereas Plato moves about amid a fragmentary system like a man dazed by his own penetration (AI 146-147). Third, past architectonic attempts themselves constitute an important source of inspiration for a system-builder such as Whitehead. So when he claims that “the systematic thought of ancient writers is now nearly worthless; but their detached insights are priceless” (ESP 84), he is not to be taken prima facie. There is no contradiction here: his fascination for the fragile coherence of past ontologies (such as Plato’s or Newton’s) does not obliterate the requirement of applicability, that justifies his quoted claim.

For More Complete Version Of => Above-mentioned Preview of “Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought Volume 1” Click Here.

HsgSee3ExixtingSupplmWebPagesTooLargeThusStart4th: Edit additions ~5-15May24. General Fixup & Add Whitehead Txt 18June26.
File =PoThPgSuppt4v06+Fix&AddNu01+Whitehed2.docx
PrevFile = PoThPgSuppt4v06
PrevFile = PoThPgSuppt4v01 StartNuBcuzOthersTooBig+GgBkComplexityCreativityArcvd