The Brain: The Hierarchy of Consciousness

I have been thinking about consciousness since I read Milan Kundera’s novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I don’t believe that humanism is the atheist vision. I believe that humanism has failed. Homo sapience is inadequate. Natura sapience is necessary for us to survive and to thrive. Naturalism is the future of atheism.

Human beings do not have a monopoly on consciousness. Consciousness is a spectrum. The more complex the life form, the higher the level of consciousness. If we think about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as differing levels of consciousness in living things and not simply in human beings we can think about what level of consciousness each form of life has managed to evolve into.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework

“You’ve come a long way baby.” — Virginia Slims

I have been attempting to come up with a means to communicate some of my insights without losing the heart of the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor. I was sick of repeating the graphic without adding much more content. Finally, I have come up with the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework.

First, let’s refresh on what the Six Hats represent:

asixhatsb.jpg

REVISE: Conceptualize. Expand Meaning. What are you enhancing or making right? Creativity.

RELATE: Contextualize. Focus on Uniqueness. What is your mantra? Relativity.

REPORT: Logicalize. Maximize Value. What are you normalizing to the limit? Optimicity.

RECORD: Physicalize. Minimize Cost. What is your business model? Pessimicity.

REFINE: Mechanicalize. Humanize Interaction. How do you lower the barriers to adoption? Anthropicity.

REPEAT: Operationalize. Synchronize. Increase Availability. How do you make yourself convenient? Synchronicity.

Second, lets refresh on what the Six Coats represent:

asixcoatsb.jpg

MOTIVE: Motivational. Why? Concepts affected.

LOCALE: Spatial. Where? Contexts affected.

OBJECT: Formal. What? Logics affected.

METHOD: Functional. How? Physics affected.

PERSON: Personal. Who? Humans affected.

MOMENT: Temporal. When? Synchrons affected.

Now, let’s look at some of our concepts in within the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework.

The first is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):

maslowinterrogatives.jpg

Second is McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):

mcluhaninterrogatives.jpg

Third is Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):

moffettinterrogatives.jpg

The Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Model hierarchy (rows) and Zachman Focuses (columns):

dikwinterrogatives.jpg

Now, we are going to break the rules. Perhaps we will see something we hadn’t considered.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (rows) and Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (columns):

maslowmoffett.jpg

McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (columns):

mcluhanmaslow1.jpg

McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (columns):

mcluhanmoffett.jpg

Second last, “old reliable”, an abstract representation of the Zachman Framework:

zachmanabstract.jpg

Finally, one I call “Puzzles and Pieces”:

puzzlespieces.jpg

Hope you might see something new. It is sort of an ad nauseum excercise in search of a new pattern. Personally, I am reflecting on the similarity of multiple systems of thought about systems. “Puzzles and Pieces” was the outcome for me so far. The top three rows are the relationships above the individual entities (ie. Networks above Nodes) and the bottom three rows are the relationships below the individual entities (ie. Nodas below Nodes). I had to create some new terms for the focuses of the lower three rows.

See the latest version of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework here.

Since I have created this framework I have made considerable progress and simplification you can see the result of this here.

relationary six hats, six coats framework relationary six hats, six coats framework relationary six hats, six coats framework

Parts and Assemblies

This is another way of looking at the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor:

frameworkcollectionobject.jpg

I’m looking for a good name for this matrix.  Right now I call these “parts and assemblies” and show their relationships: extra (outside), inter (between) and intra (within). We can look at these in respect to the Zachman Framework

zachmanframeworkabstract.jpg

We can also look at the frameworks in the previous post and discover more traits of our frameworks.

Here’s a new table format I am experimenting with:

hatscoatsmaslow.jpg

Hope you like it.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Rack

Now that we have been exploring the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor, I want to bring back the Zachman Framework as an abstract.

zachmanframeworkabstract.jpg

The term “relations” is equivalent to “tables”. “Associations” is equivalent to “rows”. “Attributes” is equivalent to columns. “Domains” is equivalent to “valid values”. “Definitions” is equivalent to “affordances”. “Manipulations” is equivalent to “transactions”.

You can see when we abstract in this way the correlation with the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor is complete.

stl03.jpg

So why create the two models? I created the Six Hats, Six Coats model to have a neutral workspace to reveal how many other hexads exist and correlate. We have seen how Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,

  maslowframework.jpg

and McLuhan’s Tetrads

mcluhanframework01.jpg

can all be extended to fit onto this framework. And I will continue to incorporate more elements as they present themselves.

Reexamining Insideness and Outsideness

In working on the Six Hats, Six Coats model it occurred to me that perhaps my work on tetrads requires reexamination.  It occurred to me that maybe I am not dealing with tetrads, but hexads.  Let’s use a reexamination of Maslow’s hierarchy as an example.  I am reincorporating the physiological needs and I am adding an existential need to the mix.

sixmaslow.jpg

 As you can see there are not only two more needs, but another boundary as well.  I am especially curious about the implications for Moffett’s Universe of Discourse and McLuhan’s Laws of Media.  Here’s Moffett:

 sixmoffetta.jpg

As you can see Moffett’s Universe of Discourse requires no magnificent leap of faith to convert from a tetrad to hexad.  I will attempt more of these tetrad to hexad conversions in later posts.

Systems versus Humans

In my previous post I discussed art and design in the context of communication. Now I want to reveal a correlation that came up between the work of John Zachman and Abraham Maslow. I believe it reveals that computer systems and human systems respectively obey the same basic principles.Here is the Zachman model:

commcyclezachman.jpg

Here is the Maslow Model:

commcyclemaslow2.jpg

As you can see both frameworks share a similar hierarchy. It is my assertion that they are the same.

God, Abram and Abraham Maslow

“Leave your country, your people and your father’s household
And go to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation
And I will bless you
I will make your name great
And you will be a blessing
I will bless those who bless you
And whoever curses you I will curse
And all nations on earth
will be blessed through you.”

Genesis 12:1-3, NIV

The above passage is referred to as God’s promise to Abram. In it God tells Abram all the needs that will be fulfilled in Abram’s life if he simply depends on God to fulfill his physiological needs. God would eventually rename Abram to Abraham.

A few thousand years after this was written, Abraham Maslow came up with his renowned “hierarchy of needs”. This hierarchy had the five following components:

  1. Physiological
  2. Safety
  3. Belonging
  4. Esteem
  5. Self-Actualization

When I looked at this hierarchy the alarm bells went off, because I was deeply familiar with the book of Genesis and God’s promise to Abram in particular.

Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you fulfills the physiological requirement.

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you fulfills the belonging requirement.

I will make your name great and you will be a blessing fulfills the esteem requirement.

I will bless those who bless you and those who curse you I will curse fulfills the safety requirement.

All nations on earth will be blessed through you fulfills the self-actualization requirement.

So, what is it that Maslow revealed to us that the authors of the Old Testament haven’t already recognized as fundamental needs? It appears to me that Maslow at best reinvented the wheel. At worst he plagiarized and secularized a Bible passage.

On further examination of this passsage and of Maslow’s hierarchy we can find that there is a defining quality between the physiological and the remaining needs. The physiological need does not require social interaction, the four remaining needs do. This produces another tetrad.

maslow.jpg

God, Abram and Abraham Maslow digg