Gracias, mi amigo!

L

... But this does not make the point about XOR in our brains operating in the context of geting wholes out of wholes (simple objects out of complex objects) and how THAT is done through self-referencing,

That said, the diagrams do make the point of a need to use self-referencing to impliment XOR in the neurology (output of one neuron needed on to the input of the preceding neuron)

This dynamic also elicits paradox as it does extract esch part of the whole.

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

The process of self-referencing yin/yang is reflected in the undivided block of Tao Te Ching verse 28. (see my notes in http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao.html
) - thus the process is cutting the whole into finer and finer distinctions - the neurology does this as well and the set of categories derived from such is isomorphic to those derived from self-referencing yin/yang. Same method, different context, same categories, different labels.

since yin/yang is the original 'cut', every application of yin/yang encodes the whole in all parts and XOR can pick that up.

IF we go to 4096 dodecagrams then the XOR is 4096 possible forms PER dodecagram - and so even more details - but it can get too much usually, we dont need that much detail and 64 per hexagram is enough, usually ;-)

lightofreason said:

... But this does not make the point about XOR in our brains operating in the context of geting wholes out of wholes (simple objects out of complex objects) and how THAT is done through self-referencing,

Click to expand...

Point #1

That said, the diagrams do make the point of a need to use self-referencing to impliment XOR in the neurology (output of one neuron needed on to the input of the preceding neuron)

Click to expand...

Point #2