The Gnostic Ophites' Corner

The Second Darkening of Valinor

Written by Anand Madhu Last Updated (01 September 2014)
PDFPrintE-mail

Latest Update:

 

Find the title funny?

Trust me,

go ahead and read this book,

it's serious nonfiction really, and of utmost importance!

Find the book here

 


 

The Second Darkening of Valinor

RQ is identified, paving the way for the return of logic

 

From 2010 to 2013, found some centrally important details in neuroscience: the first principles of neuroscience, namely, the manner in which the Microsystems linked to dopamine and Norepi, work.

To put it technically, the DLMS engages in Monoconditional signalling; NLMS engages in Multiconditional signalling; though, as this page is meant for the lay reader, I’ll try to refrain from discussing technicalities.

 

(For the basics of neuroscience, read the Telegram).

 

The solution to all problems? We must assemble a different kind of living system, as covered here.

 

 

 

An important finding is the presence of a set of mental faculties which I call RQ, which is related to the term “instinct”... Thus, though not unknown, RQ is poorly understood and insufficiently investigated…

What is RQ?

 

First, a bit about the brain. The brain can be defined as a package of several parallel processing networks (circuits)... each circuit is made up of Dopaminic and Norepic signalling checkposts (the DLMS and the NLMS); circuits work in a manner described in the second picture below.

 

To understand RQ or Receptive* Quotient, we present two or three examples showcasing RQ as an umbrella term for several neural circuits which:

  1. Use, overall, more dopamine than Norepi
  2. Are hard-set in the characteristic manners of their processing
  3. Are many and can be called the quantitative talents; are different from the few qualitative talents (e.g.: logical talent, qualitative ToM etc.).

* It is called receptive because Receptive Quotient is largely, and remarkably, linked to Dopamine's monoconditional, or directly stimuli-reactive aka receptive nature, more than to Norepi’s multiconditional signalling aka generative nature

 

First example of what is maybe a RQ type circuit:

When pigeons fly in a V formation, which they do to increase the efficiency of the flock i.e. fly with minimal effort – it is not as if they have solved the equations of fluid dynamics, finding that this is an optimal formation for the flock!

The pigeons just know – genetically; advising them, in this situation, are instincts self-evidently unrelated to the higher logical solver neural circuit. Such auto-calculative circuits, which calculate and provide output (bird's velocity path) on the basis of predictable stimuli, give insight to how RQ-type neural circuits work.

 

 

Second example of a RQ type circuit:

Brownell et al.: “In one influential paper, Humphrey (1976) portrayed primates’ social networks as riddled with computational problems more complex than those found in predator-prey relations, or those needed for learning/reasoning about the world. Humphrey depicted primates as homo psychologicus or natural psychologists, social tacticians who must take into account detailed knowledge of conspecifics who're likely opponents or possible allies.”

Some such computational problems might be:

  • ·         Knowing when to powerfully bark at a fellow chimpanzee
  • ·         Knowing whom to ally with or against
  • ·         Knowing the Alpha’s identity (knowing whose back to scratch)
  • ·         Knowing mob anger, when to flee to the safety of a high tree

Such behaviours (solving of such computational problems) -- which have little to do with logic and are rather about giving pro-survival outputs on the basis of predictable sets of stimuli -- define RQ -- the neural circuits related to which:

1.      are unrelated to the NLT-area-linked 'logic-solver' neural circuit;

2.      can undertake certain categories of complex calculations – however, the largely dopaminic microcircuits responsible for these calculations, are hard-set and immutable, thus these microcircuits are not versatile, that is, these are unable to solve problems other than the highly specific problems which they evolved to solve (see, for example, point c) mentioned below).

·         The 'logic-solver' circuit, on the other hand, is versatile, that is, it can solve a wide range of problems – which was the very purpose of its evolution.

3.     are associated with the LT-area, which (meta-which, to be precise) is dendritic (largely dopamine-using)

 

Third example of a RQ type circuit:

 

If a pair of African lions finds itself surrounded by a much more numerous mob of belligerent hyenas -- in that case, the lions only watch the hyenas circling about, and themselves sit still, guarding each other’s backs instead of fighting -- it is as if they inherited some such understanding about this class of situations from their forefathers!

 

Contextually, such behaviour is strange, because, in most cases, territorially-lacking lions simply attack hyenas...

 

Such are the computational problems solved by RQ-type circuits, which, here, provide the following solution: Don’t fight; rather, guard each other’s backs and sit still, defensively, wait for the hyenas to leave.

 

If we transplant two tigers (from an initially different ecology) into the same hyena situation (which is alien to their models), these tigers, even though outnumbered, may have fatally tried to attack the hyenas; being unused to teamwork, they could not have guessed the strategy of placing their backs to each other, and holding ground instead of fighting. Two adult tigers from even the third generation of tigers implanted into this new hyena-containing surroundings, couldn’t, say, have “guessed” the right solution, because it takes many generations for instincts to build up, for instincts to slowly sink in and set into the genes as RQ circuits.

 

Was the lion's decision to hold ground -- or, say, the better-known behaviour of killing the other male lion's cubs, for example -- a result of activity of its logical talent, like the logical talent which helps one fashion tools?

 

The answer is: No!

 

Evidently, the lion's decision was not a result of conscious choice or logical deduction – rather it is something in the lion that the tiger doesn’t have... something ingrained – it is, in other words, an instinct -- it is an ingrained neural microcircuit, which reacts specifically (says "hold your ground") if faced with a specific stimuli (too many opponents).

 

Thus it is unlikely that the lion’s “decision” results from a logical calculation.

 

Rather, it is a RQ-type “instinct” – a behaviour owing to transgenerational entrenchment of neurocircuital architecture, an instinct similar to what makes a man involuntarily clench his fists in case of a threat.

 

A certain utensil in the spinal cord, which causes the famous knee-jerk reaction (which has been found to be dopaminic -- the "diencephalospinal dopaminergic system"), is a simple analogy to help understand the largely dopaminic RQ.

 

In regard to insects, similarly, they respond to certain stimuli in certain predictable manners (ant runs, for example, if your finger lands besides it – which results from a simple, largely stimuli-reactive/dopaminic microcircuit, rather than the deductive/logical talent that is absent in the ant).

Another example is seen in the stork, which avoids all such snakes that it knows are poisonous, even since birth, as if it has inherited some such understanding from the previous generation; indeed!

 

Such are the examples of RQ, which must be differentiated from deeds undertaken on advice by conscious choice, or the logic-solver circuit. There are innumerable RQ microcircuits which sculpt one's personality.

 

And importantly, not all RQ microcircuits are suitable for an increasingly evolved mankind.Thankfully, these quantitative circuits are easy to retire, one need merely stop using them.

 

If one feels “murder is good,” it is usually more an instinct drawing more from a materialistic auto-pilot (found in all animals) -- which, for the presumed sake of reproductive success, instinctively advises murder. It is not usually a result of how he thought, finding that “murder is the optimal action, in this case, to carry out,” and consciously chose to do it.

 

 

 

Thus RQ is composed of many personality-defining microcircuits…

 

 

It is not a matter of choice that lions kill cubs (or that sociopaths act in the manner they do) – only that such microcircuits were favourable to evolutionary selection, and are, as a result, part of “its” neurostructure...

 

Therefore, ecology-reactants work to reconfigure the brains they impinge.

 

The overly dendritic brain of the high RQ (i.e. largely RQ-based) person, can be seen as subconscious... existing on a lower plan of consciousness -- it is more like a highly developed spinal cord.

 

The fundamental human-defining attribute, the ability to discern and act in accordance with reason, is less in him.

 

But he has no need to worry, IQ can be trained, RQ can be reduced; just needs the restructuring* of man's surroundings and reform of capitalism -- see this page).

 

Most of RQ's neural organ mechanisms exist in the LT-area's backyard, the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex aka DLPFC

File:Prefrontal1.png

 

About the DLPFC, it is thus said:

a) “The DLPFC may be involved in the act of deception and lying,[24]

b) The DLPFC may also be involved in threat-induced anxiety.[29]

c) More specifically, it is theorized that threat-induced anxiety may also be connected to deficits in resolving problems, which leads to uncertainty. [//there is thus a Yin-Yang relation between RQ and IQ; high RQ-people have low IQ, and vice versa]

d) The DLPFC seems to contribute to social functions through the operation of its main speciality the executive functions, for instance when handling complex social situations.[9]

e) Social areas in which the role of the DLPFC is investigated are, amongst others, social perspective taking[7] and inferring the intentions of other people,[7] or theory of mind*;[9] the suppression of selfish behavior,[30][7] and commitment in a relationship.[31]

* Nevertheless, Brownell et al.'s research shows that the higher aspects of Theory of Mind use areas in the right brain (and thus should engage with the NLT-area, and thus we can say that the higher aspects of EQ are quasi-IQ rather than RQ)

f) “Greater DLPFC activation during interracial contact depleted available executive resources in biased individuals.”

 

Some flippantly say: “[DL-PFC] serves as the highest cortical area; it plays an important role in the regulation of intellectual function.”
 

Though some of the deepest aspects of intellect, i.e. theoretical logical talent, are handled by structures in the OFC’s NLT-area, not the DLPFC.

 


 

This class of instinct faculties -- as well as syllogical faculty -- are together classified under the category “RQ”.

 

What is Syllogical faculty? To answer that, let us ask another question:

..........

 

What is Evil?

Prominent thinkers like David Hume, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell have tried, but couldn’t give a satisfactory answer to that question.

  • The world's mischief-mongers are not the so-called Illuminati (or at least we can say that "Illuminati" is not the best, all-encompassing, or always true term to use)....
  • The world's mischief-mongers are not the Zionists or Jews (or at least we can say that "Zionist" is not the best, all-encompassing, or always true term to use; while “Jew” is a decidedly worse term)
  • The world's mischief-mongers are not the WASPs ("WASP" is scarcely the best term to use)

 

The dire problem of mischief... is not concentrated in any person, cult, or sect (that is merely what the jobless scapegoaters say).

 

Evil is associated with error, illogicality, non-objective (pseudo-) logic…

 

If we ignore secondary evil (vengeance etc.) -- primarily, evil results from the ignorance-based activities of the multitude, rather than being about some list of conspiracy theories or conspirers.

 

The source of evil is diffused across mankind; it is associated with illogical error; thus still stands true Socrates's sentence: "the only evil in the world is ignorance".

 

Because all men use the ignorance-linked RQ/syllogical faculty, nearly every man qualifies as partly evil (either directly or indirectly... though, more typically, the indirect form of evil is seen in the Kantianistically moral).

Again, what is the syllogical faculty?

 

It is about a heavy neural circuit that is different from the logic-solver circuit.

This syllogical circuit is relatively dopaminic, and confers the ability to synthesize statements from verbal components (e.g.: birds fly, ostrich is a bird, hence ostriches fly).

It's related to the famous Broca's area in the left brain.

 

The relatively Norepic Logical talent, which is about discerning something not directly following from verbal components – differs from syllogical talent – as proven by observation of the phenomenon of Non-verbal learning disability, a mental condition whose patients have good verbal associative (syllogical) ability – but poor logical talent – so that they need the help of others to cross the road, or tie laces, but can win any debate...

 

The NLD patient's sheer dependance on verbal communication most clearly shows that syllogical facuty is different from logical talent.

 

For a more detailed explanation, read my thesis in theoretical neuropsychology.

 

The syllogician, in one apolitical but broad sense of the term -- as a noun which means "linear thinker" (LT-area-user) – has, of course, more than just syllogical faculty; there are also the other RQ-type "instinct" auxiliary inputs, such as neural circuits manifesting their reactions and processing as fear, anxiety, envy etc.; these also influence the syllogician decision process.

All these inputs, when put together with syllogical faculty, often result in illogical decisions.

In a logical brain, RQ-type auxiliary inputs are fewer (because syllogical faculty cannot by itself help survive -- though logical talent can, mostly…)

Thus RQ is about neural circuits which are higher in quantity but lower in quality… which is a fatal trend, as we'll eventually see (that is why IQ must be encouraged over RQ).

 

Syllogical faculty is the greatest of such microcircuits which differ from logical talent though do play, nevertheless, a role in “solving problems”. Thus, the term RQ refers to "syllogical faculty plus other dopaminic quasi-instincts".

 

RQ results in all heuristic-type errors.

 

Humanity occurs in a spectrum, with "abnormals" on 2 ends and "normals" in the middle (actually the neural spectrum of humanity is a lot more complex, and the simplified version is seen below).

 

The neural spectrum of humanity

 

The abnormals are: 

a)      NLD types (syllogician Schizoids) on one end of this spectrum

b)      Aspergian Schizoids on the other end.

 

This spectrum demarcation is a natural result of how there are 2 different systems of cognition in humans; those with a better-developed NLT-area have higher D-IQ (Deductive IQ), and those with a better-developed LT-area have a better developed A-IQ (Analytical IQ aka syllogical faculty).

Thus we demarcate between the four types of humans (which seemingly corresponds to the A/O/B blood group variation):

The blood group hypothesis is based on how the observed psychology in the A/O/B demarcation is spectacularly similar to the observed psychology in the Neo-NT/classical NT/Aspergian demarcation. We'll come to that in a moment, but before that let us summarize.

 

 

Nonverbal Learning Disability patients are extreme syllogicians… their mirror opposites, the Aspergians, can be called extreme logicians. But that is in the limited medical sense of the term syllogician/logician.

 

The political usage of these terms syllogician/logician differs.

 

 

Most important is the political sense of the term "syllogician", which occurs in the histories that I write...

 

The political meaning of "syllogician":

Though evil is indeed diffused, some people use much more of their far stronger RQ/syllogical faculty than others. Thus the world's mischief-mongers can more precisely be called "the syllogicians" (people who are politically dominated by their syllogical faculty).

 

The first things to discuss are the two types of logical abilities in man: theoretical logical ability and analytical logical ability.

 

  • In brief, analytical ability helps see X, Y, Z and such data which are empirically known, and derive results from them.
  • Theoretical ability helps see (P), (Q), (R) and such data which are empirically poorly-known but can be conceived of, and derive results from them.

 

An empirical, blood type-linked hypothesis is the following table (also refer second table before jumping to conclusions).

Blood type

Description of characteristically-developed specimen of Type

A

Analytical logician: possesses relatively highly developed analytical logical ability

B

Theoretical logician: possesses relatively highly developed theoretical logic ability

 

AB

Analytical logician + theoretical logician, a natural bridge who can experience both A and B’s idea-worlds

 

O

Meta-logician: possesses good theoretical ability which is regularly predominant in key situations; has good analytical ability also; ability to absorb burden in theoretical, analytical, and most importantly other areas (willpower, stamina etc.)

 

 

While one cannot say specifically about individuals (as all have the seeds of every talent, which can be variously developed by practice) – one can talk about statistics, which is why the below table is important, though the values given are dummy values i.e. indicative "estimates" -- rather than data found by research (which is invited)...

 

 

Table generated as per Blood Group hypothsis No. 3, which assumes a probabilistic model

Talent probabilities>>

Probability of specimen's analytical talent being 

Probability of specimen's theoretical talent being

Probability of specimen's other critical talents being 

Specimen type

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

Low

A

63%

25%

12%

24%

36%

40%

50%

30%

20%

B

24%

36%

40%

63%

25%

12%

50%

30%

20%

AB

50%

30%

20%

50%

30%

20%

39%

31%

30%

O

33%

33%

33%

33%

33%

33%

70%

20%

10%



Other important indicative/dummy values:

 

16% = Probability of an A-type/analytical person being a "sophist"/"syllogician" (core p0/PΦ) which is roughly defined as one whose activities are guided by syllogical statements of policy

4% = Probability of a B-type/theoretical person being a "sophist"/"syllogician" (core p0/PΦ)

8% = Probability of a O-type/normal person being a "sophist"/"syllogician" (core p0/PΦ)

12% = Probability of an AB-type/theoretical+analytical person being a "sophist"/"syllogician" (core p0/PΦ) which is roughly defined as one whose activities are guided by syllogical statements of policy


Of course it is not necessarily so; it is a function of the political nature of society. The meaning of a Golden Age is when all above values are 0%

 

(Note: Probabilities of one being a "logician" are similarly laid out and might be derived or conceived of by the reader.)

 

While the blood group hypothesis needs more proof by way of clinical trials and large-scale experiments -- the neuroscience behind the rest of the concepts dilineated -- is strong -- and can be read here.

 

 

Traditionally, IQ used to imply D-IQ, but there was a controversial rejig of that term by Mensa. The Mensa definition also includes A-IQ, but A-IQ is categorized under RQ by us.

 

 

Why?

 

The GREAT IQ CONTROVERSY results in our proposal to demarcate Mensa/Bell's idea of IQ; to split it up into:

 

a) Analytical logical talent (A-IQ, which is a major part of RQ; we can reductionistically call it RQ) 

and

b) Theoretical logical talent i.e. Deductive IQ i.e., IQ proper, which is linked to nonverbal thinking, or, to be precise, "nonlinear thinking" or qualitative thinking

 

(Mensa's definition of IQ improperly includes "quantitative linear thinking"…)

 

The difference between the LT-area-linked A-IQ and the NLT-area-linked D-IQ* is covered, in brief here, and in detail here (see paper 2).

    * Or rather, should have called it T-IQ -- Theoretical IQ -- to be more precise and consistent with terminology

A-IQ i.e. syllogical faculty, is also an intelligence, it is true; but it is more scientific to classify it under RQ*.

* Because syllogical faculty uses the same Dopamine-dominated, relatively dendritic DL-PFC+LT-area layout; thus:

  1. Imaging studies like PET and fMRI indicate DLPFC involvement in syllogistic reasoning.[28]
  2. Julie E Fiez: “Petersen and colleagues [1988, 1989] were among the first to suggest that regions within the left frontal lobe contribute to semantic processing... Relative to noun repetition, verb generation task produced significantly greater activation in a left inferior prefrontal region located at or near Brodmann area (BA) 47.”
  3. Kapur et al.: "The semantic task resulted in a significant unilateral left dorsolateral prefrontal activation.”

 

As for the philosophy, that is simple.

 

It is the philosophy of the Golden Age.

 

If high RQ is linked to disease, as it -- one can avoid disease by avoiding dependance on RQ -- instead, train up IQ and move into the right type of ecology, which encourages IQ instead of RQ.

As if a magic bonus on the side -- this step -- i.e. spreading and popularizing the right kind of pro-logic education, which causes RQ-linked neural circuits to fall into disuse (and ultimately, vestigiality) -- also purges the world of evil, which is, as we'd discussed, linked to errors (e.g.: racism) propagated by RQ-type neural connections.

The Darkening of Valinor* will occur when the syllogician powers (i.e. some of the main Valar of the B/P-K/G faction) realize this.

* It will be the second Darkening of Valinor, for history has seen a first Darkening of Valinor, brought by Feanor, which led to the Golden Age of Kronos

This, then, is the key to the Golden Age... it is mankind's duty (and indeed destiny) to place it into the keyhole.

 

 

 
Add a comment