"One process theory: seemingly divergent aspects described as a dual process are really one process higher up.

" Micah Blumberg ( Neomindcycle.com ) on One Process Theory One process theory does not deny dual process theory, it just unifies them with a common underlying process of network based memory-prediction. The dual process es then are strategies, Noam Chomsky might say they are genetically endowed stra tegies, features of the specific properties of the physical structure of our min ds. This is part of the equation, genetic or actually protein based structural d ifferences have a lot to do with why different personalities develop, and why di fferent people are very good at different kinds of tasks. However the case for g enetic predetermination is very poor, its localism, and the modern science of br ain plasticity (also called neuro plasticity) has produced evidence that runs co unter to the notion of fixed localist genetic endowments. We know how to increas e IQ, creativity, intelligence, cause a person to have more insights, to become more integrated internally. I do it in my office, and in my business with advanc ed state of the art neurotechnology. When the brain is first forming the neurons grow synapses in a straight line, un til they collide with another neuron. When we speak of a new connection, its ins ide the existing network of physical connections, a new physical feature between existing points is what establishes that connection. Like a connection on top o f existing connections. So in the Pavlovian Conditioning, associations are formed because neurons that f ire together wire together, but since synapses are somewhat pre-wired, what is c hanging is the strength of the link between those neurons that fired in a tempospatial sequence. The protein that forms in the process of LTP changes the neurons whole structure , adding to its density, and its new shape changes its electrical balance, so it fires different. How Neurons form connections http://actu.epfl.ch/news/blue-brain-project-accurat ely-predicts-connections/ More on genetic differences (thanks to Maya Parvati for sharing this first) "Direction selective neurons respond to some directions of movement better than oth ers. For example, a neuron may respond to a vertical line moving leftwards but n ot moving rightwards. The direction selective neurons generate visual responses with different time delays at different regions of the receptive field. Some reg ions respond faster to visual stimuli than others. As a consequence of these dif ferences in response timing, a line moving from a slow to a fast region generate s a stronger response than a line moving from a fast to a slow region. When the line moves in the optimal direction, the slow region, which is stimulated first, responds approximately at the same time as the fast region, which is stimulated later. To make an analogy, imagine that two people are trying to say response at the same time but one of them is speaking through a microphone that has a temporal d elay of one second. The person that is using the delayed microphone has to say resp onse one second before the other for the two voices to fuse in unison. The result i s a stronger response than when the order is reversed." http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar ticle/Receptive_field Running counter to the idea of inborn genetic traits is the neuroplasticity of l ondon taxi drivers, who develop more brain in the posterior hippocampus http://w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16086233 this is associatism at work manifesting new ph ysical changes in the brain. Changes that could be genetically passed down, chan ges that could be reversed during the lives of their descendents with the same m

echanism of brain plasticity (associatism) which means that babies might have th e genetic traits that predispose them for language, but only because their paren ts acquired that language via associatism aka behaviorism. This is how memory-pr ediction (one theory) can underly dual process theory. Take for example: Two monkey's have very different strategies, reason vs intuiti on, longterm vs short term, this can literally be seen as different activity in their neurology http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-07/scientists-read-monkeys-minds-seewhat-theyre-planning-do-they-do-it However it might be that they developed very different strategies because they p redict that strategy is best, the unifying process is that both reason and intui tion are accomplished via the underlying process of prediction. so reason and in tuition are just coordination patterns the organism becomes attached to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2029189/We-CAN-predict-future-The -brain-knows-whats-going-happen-does.html See republicans have different brains from democrats apparently http://www.scien cedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101105003.htm You can see this concept developed in a more complex way in the earlier work of Dario Nardi, who maps 16 regions of the mind with eeg over ten months with many participants to demonstrate that Carl Jungs 16 personality types are real, peopl e with the same personality type typically use the same sequences of same region al activity in their brain to accomplish a task, while people with different per sonality types typically use different sequences and different regional activity in their brain to accomplish the same task. Dario's book http://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Personality-Brain-Insights-Peopl e/dp/0979868475 Dario's talk at google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA Noam Chomsky argues against associatism (behaviorism), because he says a baby in stantly knows how to pay attention to begin learning language, he insists other animals cannot begin to be interested in language from birth as a human can. So he claims there must be something special about the inner structure of the human mind that makes it optimal for learning different things. As we can see in the above examples thats very true. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-arti ficial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ Noam Chomsky thinks both Neuroscience, and AI are moving in the wrong direction, including the new direction of heirarchal grid networks modeled on the brain th at create tokens of meaning from memory-predictions. Both Neuroscience and AI are using reductionist associatism to link predictions into tokens of meaning. Noam Chomsky argues against "Connectome" Paradigm Neurology specifically because no one is asking even whether looking at connections is even the right level of abstraction. So we have shifted the focus away from intuitive understanding, toward results b ased engineering, the heirarchal grid creates results we do not intuitively unde rstand, its artificial neural substrate is a reductionist model. Hear the brilliant Monica Anderson articulate the philosophical difference betwe en the reductionist approach and the intuitive approach, both of which are appro aches that can be adopted by memory-prediction brains, as illustrated in the two

monkey's article mentioned above. Monica Anderson: Models vs. Patterns https://vimeo.com/5012093 The reductionist throws out context to make a context free model, that is fraugh t with potential problems in the bizarre real world, the intuitionist is model f ree, meaning they have a less exacting but more flexible approach. It was the Am erican's intuition guerrila warfare strategy against the Reductionist exacting B ritish military method in the revolutionary war that some historians claim won t he war, and American's learned this strategy from fighting Indians. War is fille d with examples where we have consider the escalating risks that can derail any military plan, because of unexpected real world surprises that cannot be fully p redicted in a model. Yes if we are smart we make a lot of contingency plans, and we train in realisti c scenarios. The point is that models are developed by disregarding context. In a holistic ap proach context is essential, and we add to the present context to coordinate min d and body into the achievement of a successful short term result. Connectomics, Neuroscience, and AI are making models, sometimes the model is a s ubstrate structure to support model free learning, and unsupervised learning. Fo r references see Monica Andersons's Artificial iNtuition, Google's Cat, Numenta' s Grok, and IBM's Blue Brain. Old AI is even worse, trying to hand code a taxonomy of atomic concepts, instead of building a relational system that allows a machine to develop (learn) its ow n internal representations (statistically developed tokens of meaning in spatial patterns, ie so imagine that a neuron is a node like a vertex, and its token of meaning is in the vectors that link that vertex to other vertex's. The quest for the right level of abstraction to explore key questions, and the r ight level of context where our models are able to be related to analogy. How does association become analogy? How does analogy split into dual process 1. intuition 2. reasoning In Category Theory we have a clean level of abstraction for relating categories to other categories (associations we make) and we have the ability to specify wh ich part of a category is isomorphic to some part of another category. We can do this with morphisms (like an arrow that illustrates an association and a direct ion), and by identifying elements within a category (via Monads) Category theory allows humans to get mathematically precise in terms of modeling precise associations, isomorphisms, symmetries, asymmetries, invariant similari ties between different things, this is another tool for creating models, albiet models that have increased flexibility, with less errors than object oriented pr ogramming. Category Theory, and functional programming allows us to relate contexts with mo dels, and models with contexts, so now we can create the kind of artificial neur al substrate (the genetic predisposition) where results activate or deactivate a ssociations in the code, just like associations forming and unforming in a brain . On the flip side, we want Composition (association) to be in the hands of the AI (via the substrate) so we are not hand coding the whole taxonomy of internal as

sociations (actually none of it) instead the composition is driven by statistics in the artificial heirarchal temporal memory system. The composition aspect of category theory is where associations are made, and in a heirarchal structure that does both reasoning and intuition we need both arti fical composition (adding associations to create expanding contexts, like expand ing awareness, like intuition for AI) and old AI (hardware, software, or wetware ) that does learned or programmed reasoning (learned recipies, formula's, models , for knowing when to subtract context, to develop a manual shift in focus) I make this argument because my brain is not at the top of the heirarchy of syst ems that run my body. My chemical composition is. My chemical composition determ ines the available neurotransmitters, my inflammation levels, my neurological he alth, when I feel energitic and smart, as well as when I feel tired and have to go to sleep. My One Process is a President not a King. The dual process of genetics (biochemi cal) and association (life experience) both work to create real variations in pe ople, shaping those we see as more intuitive like an artist, and those we see as more reason driven like an engineer. To me they are one process because from another level everyone is a reductionist . Brains divide the world into bits, ie distinctions, collections of distinction s becomes tokens of meaning, added by association, but filtered by the existing neural structure or substrate. A distinction is a model. To not be a reductionist means you are a plant, or a m editating mindless guru who has entered pure non-dualistic awareness, which isn' t awareness really. So the dual process is dualism, its not entirely an illusion, but what it appear s to be appears different to each person, sort of a general relativity like dist inction. Meaning the perspective of the observer from the position of the observ er, relative to all other tokens of meaning, is where awareness becomes a dual p rocess.