[Gary]

Correcting: The 5HT1A system FACILITATES the passive adaptation to stress, which involves a REDUCTION in anxiety and emotional response to stress and the SSRIs selectively FACILITATE (not block) this part of the serotonin system, thus blunting the passive emotional response to stress while also blunting affective response to experience in general, which undermines those functions which depend on a fully developed emotional activation. The 5HT2A system FACILITATES the active adaptation to stress which involves a significant relaxation or questioning of the underlying ‘priors’, or basic beliefs of the person that are associated with the development of the stress. And the psychedelic agents FACILITATE the 5HT2A system, thus permitting an active restructuring of basic beliefs through suggestion that can be provided in a carefully constructed psychotherapeutic experiential process while the person is experiencing ReBUS while under the influence of psychedelics.

[Gary]

It is important to put this video into an appropriate neuropsychopharmacological context with respect to the operation of the very important, massive, and complex serotonin system of the brain which includes multiple subsystems based on a variety of different serotonin receptor subtypes. One important hypothesis relates to a division of serotonin action into two major subsystems based on 5HT1A and 5HT2A serotonin receptors and is developed in this paper by cognitive neuroscientists, Robin Carhart-Harris and David Nutt…

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28858536/

…which associates the 5HT1A system with passive adaptation to stress, mostly through the generation and experience of anxiety and discomfort, and 5HT2A system with active adaptation to stress, which involves a more radical approach to the underlying problem, in terms of a fundamental shift in ‘priors.’ Consistent Carhart-Harris and Friston in their REBUS hypothesis ( RElaxed Beliefs Under pSychedelics; See: https://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/71/3/316?fbclid=IwAR36UzFla5Lfx7-4LTr6R8N0XdUSOnbg3gnRPXn806cPKO7Zsas2EsJJhDs )

The SSRI agents are active in BLOCKING the 5HT1A system by blocking these receptors, while the psychedelic agents such as LSD and psilocybin are active in FACILITATING the 5HT2A system by activating these serotoninergic receptors.

So, this all makes a good deal of sense if we recognize that the blocking of the anxiety and discomfort associated with passive adaptation to stress by the SSRIs is to basically boost the ‘I don’t give a f*ck’ euphoric attitude through anxiolysis, which is consistent with a general ‘toning down’ of the emotional responses of passive adaptation to stress, both their important beneficial and unhelpful aspects. Which can be helpful up to a point, but which clearly has a huge down side, which relates to a general blunting of emotional response and a diminishment of a stimulus to creative thought as well as the capacity for enjoyment that depends on affective activation (like, for example, achieving an orgasm, or generating a piece of art). Leonard Cohen has a great little poem called ‘Grateful’ in the book ‘The Flame’ which is a very nice description of the superficial pleasantness of the experience of being on an SSRI and not experiencing the anxiety and emotional activation that would otherwise be appropriate.

The problem with SSRIs in blunting anxiety is when the anxiety is an appropriate indicator of significant maladaptation to one’s circumstances. So while one may be anxious and spiraling down for an appropriate reason, the SSRI blocks that signal. In which case what one needs to do is to move toward an ‘active approach’ to adaptation, which involves a fundamental change in one’s ‘priors’ or basic beliefs about how things operate. Which is the process that is facilitated through the appropriate and carefully managed therapeutic use of psychedelic agents.

[Gary]

So, the implication is that the left hemisphere is not inclined toward direct self-reference in response to paradox but the right hemisphere is all set to deal with ‘re-entry into the form’ as a means of responding to and resolving paradox. When paradox arises, the left hemisphere is ‘stuck’. Its job is to enact the calculus of indications through making ‘distinctions’ via separation. But it is only adequately prepared to do this at the ‘first-order’ level. When we get up to the ‘second-order’ level and paradox becomes possible, then the right hemisphere is called in to resolve incommensurable contradiction and paradox through the introduction of continuous cyclical time via its operation in the frequency domain. With the introduction of continuous time as a primordium of continuity that serves as a mediating foundation of ‘Thirdness’ (in the ‘New List of Categories’ of Charles Sanders Peirce that also includes ‘Firstness’ and ‘Secondness’), paradox can be resolved through circular alternation and converted from an incommensurable bind to a dynamic complementarity. And what was an unresolvable split, or a bound-down polarizing lock-up, is mediated into a generative harmonization. So that, in fact, it is ‘the Medium that is the Message’ as McLuhan insisted. Without the medium there can be no communication, and without real communication (or connecting ‘trans-action’), there can be no living existence.

[Gary]

And this all fits beautifully, I think, with Iain’s approach to the differentiation of function between the left and right hemispheres. The approach of the left hemisphere is analytic and mechanistic. The left hemisphere seeks deterministic certainty and this is what the mechanistic formalism provides for it. So it holds onto the fundamental belief that the universe is a physical mechanism which fits well with its materialistic, nominalistic foundation and its focal mode of attention that tends to see the trees, but not the forest. The left hemisphere approach is ‘bottom-up’ starting with the ‘pieces’ and moving toward putting them together to assemble the ‘whole’. This can work under restricted conditions and scales. Which is what it was evolved to do–basically to provide a non-veridical ‘interface’ with reality that enables survival in the context of physical embodiment at the human scales at which the evolved non-veridical sensory interface operates. But, as Donald Hoffman maintains, this is a NON-veridical interface that HIDES the underlying relational reality from us. In the context of human species-specific ‘meta-consciousness’, it is the left hemispheric perspective that dominates through language-encoded thought (ie. egoic ‘self-talk’). This is the ‘approach of the line’–ie. the linearization of externality.

The Right Hemisphere takes a completely different approach which is fundamentally relational and based on vibrational frequencies that link to the relational reality through interactive resonances and nonverbal communication. It interacts with the world through a holistic, relational approach that links to the ‘big picture’ through a global pattern-seeking view. And it operates through affective connection, through ‘feeling’. As opposed to the tendency of the left hemisphere to see everything as machinery, the right hemisphere links to the rhythms of life and through musicality. This is the approach of the circle which involves relational communicative connection with alterity through affect-based intuition. And the recognition that interaction between self and other occurs through cyclical dynamics in which the perceiving of the other changes the other which in turn changes the perceiver which in turn changes the other, which in turn changes the perceiver… and so on. All interaction is a cyclical ‘coupling’ of connectional influence. This is the magical mystique of the right hemisphere that is not readily articulated but can be felt in a context of attunement.

[Gary]

What is a key issue is the requirement for the use of imaginary numbers in addition to real numbers (ie. ‘complex‘ numbers) in the mathematical modeling of the dynamics of a self-referential organism (see seminal paper by Francisco Varela titled ‘A Calculus of Self-Reference’), in G Spencer-Brown’s ‘Laws of Form‘ to allow for ‘Re-entry into the Form‘ (ie. self-reference) in the description of a calculus of indication that governs the process of ‘distinction’, and in quantum physics, where the use of complex numbers is necessary in the Schrödinger Wave Equation and in the quantum Hilbert Space (in classical mechanics this is not necessary and only real numbers are required!). So what is the basic difference between quantum physics and classical physics? In quantum physics, natural systems are modeled as ‘complex’ organisms that include ‘closed causal loops’ operating on a dynamical continuum, while in classical mechanics, natural systems are modeled as ‘simple’ mechanisms that comply with the mechanistic formalism, NOT as organisms. This all comes from the work of theoretical/relational biologist, Robert Rosen (author of ‘Life Itself‘ and ‘Essays on Life Itself‘). What is the bottom line? That all natural systems are ‘complex’ organisms that manifest ‘Rosennian complexity‘ due to the fact that they include ‘closed causal loops‘ operating on a dynamical continuum, which means that they are NOT computable, NOT algorithmic, NOT simulable, and NOT strictly deterministic. While mechanisms that comply with the mechanistic formalism which are subject to an ‘ontology of states‘–which organisms are NOT subject to. In other words, in the mechanistic formalism, there is the possibility of partitioning the system into ‘states’ and the ‘laws’ that govern them. But for an organism, this is NOT possible. Organisms are NOT subject to an ‘ontology of states’. This distinction has HUGE implications. It means that living Organisms as naturally occurring autopoietic, self-sustaining systems, can be shown, using the mathematical theory of categories, to be fundamentally, categorically different from fabricated Mechanisms. And that <i class=””>the semantic description of living Organisms EXCEEDS the syntactic description, whereas the semantic description of fabricated Mechanisms is EQUIVALENT to the syntactic description–for mechanisms, if you know the structure, you can predict the function; but for organisms, this is not possible. This is analogous to the distinction between the function of ‘natural language’ versus ‘computer language’. The meaning of a statement in ‘natural language’ is CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. The meaning of a statement in ‘computer language’ must be CONTEXT-INDEPENDENT. For a living Organism, meaning is mediated by context. For a fabricated Mechanism, meaning is independent of context. Or, you could say, for a Mechanism, meaning is not a possibility.

REMEMBER: the description of the dynamics of a Living Organism REQUIRES Imaginary Numbers because its relational model includes Closed Causal Loops. This is NOT TRUE for Fabricated Mechanisms, which do NOT contain Closed Causal Loops and which, as a result, can be described in terms of dynamics using Real Numbers ONLY–ie. using classical Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, Quantum Physics REQUIRES the use of Imaginary Numbers because it deals with relational modeling that includes the dynamical effects of Closed Causal Loops. This tells us that all natural systems are actually Organisms (whether or not we would consider them to be ‘living’). Quantum Physics is NOT a mechanics. The term ‘Quantum Mechanics’ contains an internal contradiction. Quantum Physics is a science of Organisms, NOT Mechanisms.

cup.columbia.edu

Life Itself | Columbia University Press

Why are living things alive? As a theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen saw this as the most fundamental of all questions-and yet it had never been answered sa... | CUP

[Gary]

Yes, I fully agree. Both are necessary for survival but the circle takes precedence over the line. Self-reference is fundamental and necessary for the functioning of the organism.