_______________________________
Christine Hardy, Ph.D.
The mechanistic paradigm--with its focus on isolated, independent systems
and linear cause-effect relationships--is giving way to new paradigms that
emphasize self-organization, interdependence and complexity. Frameworks
such as systems theory, neural networks and chaos theory shed new light on
complex relationships (such as the relationship between individuals and
their environment); in particular, these frameworks account for the
dynamical evolution of such complex relationships.
Semantic Fields theory blends a network approach with that of chaos theory
(or complex dynamical systems theory). It views learning as a process
(Combs 1995), based on connective--rather than computational--logic, and
involving nonlinear dynamics (Guastello, 1995). The computational (or
symbolic) framework considers the mind to be a computer, executing
predefined logical operations on symbols. The connectionist framework, on
the other hand, views the mind as a network of elements and processes,
organizing itself toward an optimal state (vis-ā-vis given inputs and/or
objectives), on the basis of weighted connections between the different
elements. Chaos theory, in turn, can account for the interaction of forces
and the creation of novel organizational states.
Both networks and dynamical systems exhibit self-organizational properties,
i.e., the capacity of a complex system to reorganize itself internally. The
combination of network and chaos theories is therefore a particularly
appealing framework for explaining the self-organizing and evolving
features of the mind.
Semantic Fields
Semantic Fields theory views the mind as a lattice of numerous
constellations of meaning called Semantic Constellations or SeCos. A SeCo
brings together widely different elements and processes (such as concepts,
sensations, actions, words, memories, etc.) and binds them into a
meaningful whole. Through each experience, the links and interrelations
between elements are modified, thus allowing the SeCo to reorganize itself.
The SeCo, in other words, is a network that behaves as a dynamical system,
and self-organizes. It is the act of giving meanin--to what we perceive and
intend--that builds the coherence of the SeCos, and, ultimately, of the
semantic lattice.
For example, take a painter looking at a landscape. It would be a gross
oversimplification to imagine that the landscape is simply a set of stimuli
evoking conditioned responses (concepts, memories or actions), as in the
behaviorist framework. Rather, the landscape is itself a complex natural
system having developed its own ecological web of interactions; and the
mind interacts with this complex system through multiple parallel linkage
processes that imply sensory impressions and feelings, meaningful words and
concepts, imaginary scenes, a load of past experiences, a certain state of
consciousness coloring the evolution of the perceptive process,
anticipations as to how to render it all through a painting, and so forth.
In other words, while contemplating the landscape the psyche-mind is
engaging in a rich, complex and multileveled networking process. Through
this unique, novel experience, the painter’s “Landscape” SeCo develops new
internal clusters, grows with novel meanings and new links to related
clusters, and shifts to a new global organization.
Semantic Fields theory also posits a transversal network integration of
mental and neural processes. SeCos integrate processes from lower neuronal
processes up to higher rational ones, implicating all levels in-between
(sensory, affective, imaginary, etc.). For example, learning how to draw
will imply the co-evolution of processes from different levels, such as
form-recognition, sensori-motor acts, labeling and categorizing, feelings,
intentions, etc.
This perspective, involving a transversal, psychophysical, network, casts
the mind-body problem in a different light: human knowledge and ideas are
never purely mental, abstract, or rational; rather, they are deeply tied
to sensory, motor, affective, or hormonal processes. The model thus concurs
with a growing recognition of nonrational processes in cognition (Reber,
1993). Varela, (1991) for example, holds that cognition develops out
of--and remains tied to--a strong coupling of sensory and motor exploratory
behaviors. Similarly, the model fits well with Charles Tart’s (1975)
description of states of consciousness as idiosyncratic patterns of sensory
and mental processes, behaviors, mind-sets, knowledge-sets, and memory.
Finally, the transversal cognitive architecture may shed light upon the
psychological complexes described by psychoanalysis--the pathological
grouping of traumatic experiences with mind-sets, behaviors, and
physiological processes.
The Mind as a Dynamical Network System
As recognized by several cognitive scientists (such as Minsky and Freeman),
although humans certainly engage in abstract reasoning, this is not the way
our mind operates most of the time. Computational rule-bound processing, as
expressed in logical or mathematical reasoning, must be seen as a
high-level process--more akin to something we painfully learn and force our
minds into, rather than a basic, natural working of the mind.
Semantic fields theory posits that the true ground of thought is a
low-level connective dynamic--the spontaneous linkage process. Essentially,
clusters of semantic elements are attracted to, and link themselves to,
other semantically related clusters. This connective dynamic is implemented
both within and across SeCos. The semantic activation process is typically
triggered by similarities across clusters. However, given the complexity of
these clusters, differences are bound to be present too, thus permitting
discrimination, differentiations, and the creation of new paths within the
SeCo.
In the present model, learning can be defined as the elaboration of new
link-clusters and the selection of new paths within the SeCo-network. In
this sense, there is no fundamental distinction between experiencing
something novel, generating meaning, and learning. We learn by weaving a
dynamical network between qualitative experience, various neurological
processes, and higher-level conceptualizations. SeCos are the vehicle
through which the mind-psyche experiences and reorganizes itself; what has
been learned is represented by the new organization of the SeCo--and its
enfolded past states.
The whole mind-brain network organization acts as an endo-context
influencing the meaning an experience will take on, and hence, the
unfolding of that experience. But the outside world is itself a complex,
meaning-laden network. As stressed earlier in the landscape example, the
outside world must be seen as webs of complex, self-organizing systems
that have evolved specific interrelationships and interactions. In the
present model, then, as the mind interacts with the world it develops
multiple parallel links with other complex systems; it learns to grasp
their evolutive dynamics and their organization as a whole. Consciousness
makes sense of the world through a complex web of links and relations, that
is, through connectivity and inter-influence of all the elements and
processes linked together in the lattice. Consequently, we might state that
the meaning of a novel experience emerges out of the complex interaction
between a semantic endo-context (the lattice) and a meaning-laden
exo-context (the environment). Both endo and exo-contexts influence--but do
not compel or direct--the further evolution of the relevant SeCo.
Thus, we here have a model, showing characteristics of both networks and
dynamical systems: a dynamical network model. As a network, the SeCo is
created by binding elements and processes through a spontaneous linkage
process. Seen as a dynamical system, the clustering of specific
chain-linkages between processes may be viewed as trajectories through the
state space of the system. The SeCo itself acts as an attractor basin, the
trajectories revealing an attractor that will shape subsequent experiences
and pull them toward its most recent organizational state. In other words,
the attractor is a convergent force that encourages the mind to take the
same paths through the network. But insofar as it is a dynamical system
showing self-organization, the SeCo-system may also bifurcate: a change of
parameters may provoke a reorganization of the whole SeCo and a
modification of the attractor strength or type (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw
(1990). In particular, spontaneous linkage processes can act as divergent
forces. By creating links with different exo-contexts, this process brings
about the modification and evolution of a SeCo.
Contrary to behavioristic or computational models, here the mind is not
seen as bound to past experience, or obliged to follow predefined
operations. The self-organizing properties of the mind-psyche (in terms of
both network and dynamical systems) make for dynamical
evolution--permitting the memorization of optimum past solutions without
forcing their automatic repetition. The model, in other words, allows both
for habit and for generative creativity. It explains how the mind-psyche
may follow paths of least resistance (the already formed links or
trajectories), thus falling into fixed or rigid patterns of thought and
behavior. It also allows for our ability to move beyond habit--whereby, for
example, a person may remain in an exploratory mind-set and sustain certain
SeCos in a very labile state, so as to welcome the changes and
tranformations brought about by novel experiences.
Mind-environment synergy
So far, I’ve been focusing on the internal or intra-personal aspects of the
model. Semantic fields, however, extend beyond the isolated individuals;
the theory seeks to address the transpersonal or non-local aspects of mind.
A fundamental postulate here is that perception is not solely an
interpretational process, but also a projective process, creating a
semantic organizational level in objects and the environment--what I term
eco-semantic fields. Thus consciousness is imprinting organization and
order on the physical world, by influencing and modifying the eco-fields of
objects. Consequently, the mind is not a closed system, its operations
purely internal as in the symbolic framework. To the contrary, it is viewed
as a complex network system that interacts dynamically with other complex
systems--whether individuals' noo-fields, or objects eco-fields.
I further postulate that the semantic dimension whether in individuals or
in objects) is organized not by space-time parameters, but by semantic
parameters--such as semantic proximity, recurrence, intensity, and
linkage-types. In other words, these parameters instantiate nonlocal
connections and mutual influences between distant semantic fields. This is
not a dualistic position, but reflects the neccessity to use specific
parameters to account for different organizational levels of the mind-brain
workings. The position I am suggesting is in accordance with Jahn and
Dunne's complementarity concept, (Jahn and Dunne, 1986, Jahn 1991), and
Nelson's "subjective parameters" (such as "attentional proximity" and
"intensity of subjective investment") (Nelson et al., 1996).
This leads to two main developments that address both the interpersonal
forms of psi exchanges, and those which involve person-object interactions.
Person-person exchanges. Communication between two individuals is grounded
in dynamical semantic interactions that take place between them. Their
“normal” communication create an interface-SeCo that organizes and binds
the semantic clusters activated in the two lattices. In other words, while
interacting regularly with people, we develop nonlocal connections with
them that, given sufficient recurrence and intensity, may become constant.
This interface-SeCo, if reinforced and developed through further exchanges,
will act as a nonlocal link between the two persons. Thus, if one of them
has a strong experience that has some similarities with semantic clusters
in the interface-seCo, then a semantic linkage will be triggered,
activating these clusters; the activation may then spread through chain
linkages, and via the interface-SeCo, reach into the other person's
lattice. The activated SeCos (in the latter) may remain unconscious or
provoke emergences of meaning in the flow of consciousness or in dreams.
The emergent meaning may be strictly related to the activated clusters in a
straightforward manner or may lead to derivative psi information concerning
the other person's experience, by way of a back-propagation of
chain-linkages.
Thus, the semantic level allows for various spontaneous connections or
linkages between spatially distant--but semantically proximate--semantic
fields, with or without the person's immediate awareness (as seen in ESP
occurrences and synchronicities.)
Person-object interactions. The second point deals with nonlocal
connections between people and the objects they commonly interact with.
While interacting with an object, the two facets of a person's global
semantic processing--interpretational and projective--are engaged in a
circular dynamic with the object of attention. Perception of a novel
object activates, reorganizes or creates internal SeCos; simultaneously,
the emergent meaning-clusters are injected into the eco-field of the
external object, thus changing its organization. The modified eco-field, in
turn, will be "retrojected" into the psyche, starting a new loop until,
eventually, no further meaning is generated, and the mind/object
interaction stabilizes.
The person/object synergy is triggered by the creation or reactivation of
meanings and feelings, and thus it primarily affects objects which reflect
internal concerns, dynamics, or relationships. In this sense, the objects
we have chosen to be in our environment (e.g., decorative objects at home
or at the workplace) remain semantically active, as long as they mean
something to us. Even if habituation renders us "blind" to them, they still
act as constant reminders of people, places, values, or situations.
In a deeper sense, a person's noo-field tends to organize that portion of
the world with which it is in constant interaction or semantic proximity,
creating a kind of semantic singularity within physical reality. This leads
to the concept of local universe, as being, for an individual, that part of
phenomenal reality which 1) is imprinted and shaped by his/her noo-field,
and 2) remains in semantic proximity, being shaped by thoughts, values and
feelings with a certain recurrence and intensity. Hence, the local
universe's organization tends to reflect the person's own worldview and set
of values and can, in principle, be "decoded" in these terms, by another
person.
We have thus a constant, if subtle, PK influence of consciousness upon the
external world, in the sense that meaning generation organizes physical
reality in a way that reflects the set of values and worldview of the
imprinting individual or group. This organizing influence of consciousness
on surrounding eco-fields will affect the probability of events, especially
when they are meaningful to the person. However, as we are social beings,
it is often a group--as a system of semantic influencesūthat will affect
ambient eco-fields and connected events, for example in a shared
work-place.
In this model, then, the semantic connections we entertain with people as
well as with objects are underlying and constant, and as such, may remain
largely unconscious. They form webs of interconnectedness between minds and
are the ground of informational as well as empathic exchanges. They also
create networks of mutual influences between people, and between minds and
environmental eco-fields. From the perspective of semantic fields theory,
psi phenomena are the visible breakthroughs of a much more subtle and
constant process: the connective workings of the mind.
-------------------------
Abraham, F., Abraham, R., & Shaw, C. 1990. A visual introduction to
dynamical systems theory for psychology. Santa Cruz, CA: Aerial Press.
Abraham, F. D., & Gilgen, A. R. (Eds.) 1995. Chaos theory in psychology.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Combs, A. 1995. Psychology, chaos, and the process nature of consciousness.
In Abraham F. D. & Gilgen A. R., eds. Chaos theory in psychology. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Combs, A. 1996. The radiance of being. Complexity, chaos and the evolution
of consciousness. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Guastello, S. 1995. Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hardy, C. 1997. Semantic fields and meaning: A bridge between mind and
matter. World Futures, 48, 161-70. Newark: Gordon & Breach.
Hardy, C. 1998. Networks of meaning. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Jahn, R. 1991. The complementarity of consciousness. Princeton: Princeton
Engeneering Anomalies Research, PEAR Technical Note, 91006.
Jahn, R & Dunne, B. 1986. On the quantum mechanics of consciousness., with
application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 16, 721.
Levine, D. S. & Leven, S. J. 1995. Of mice and networks: Connectionist
dynamics of intention versus action. In Abraham F. D. & Gilgen A. R., eds.
Chaos theory in psychology. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition. Boston, MA:
D.Reidel.
Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G.
(1996). FieldREG anomalies in group situations. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 10 (1), 111-41.
Reber, A. S. 1993. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tart, C. (Ed.). 1969. Altered states of consciousness. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Tart, C. 1975. States of consciousness. New York: Dutton.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. 1991. The embodied mind. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press. |
