"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EfAYb.9516$W74.6503 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> news:0uh430hkmrkvik146eao6flbl70fl5midn at 4ax.com...> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:40:46 +1000, "John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote:
> > [...]
> "Laughter" is a mechanism of communication, but it
> differs from language because it always consists of a
> 'shunting' of relatively-high TD E/I that would, otherwise
> [if it were not 'shunted'], result in information-exchange
> becoming directed away from the information-content
> contained in the verbal dynamics that are transpiring.
> Crying also falls into this category of communication
> dynamics, but is aligned differently with respect to
> global TD E/I [which can also be investigated by the
> simple method described below].
One can easily observe the dynamics inherent in
laughter's [and crying's] 'shunting' of TD E/I - in
their 'pulsatory' waveforms.
"Ho, ho, ho."
"Ha, ha, ha."
"Sob, sob, sob."
"Wail, wail, wail."
There's =always= this thresholding inherent
in laughter [and crying]. In it's stereotypical
waxing and waining, it's easily observed to
be a repetitive build-to-release->release...
phenomenon. And that discloses everything
about it with respect to TD E/I.
And study 'humor', and one sees that there's
excellent Rationale for the TD E/I-'shunting'
that's inherent. The subject matter is =always=
innocuously-'tragic' - 'troublesome'-but-there-
So the only thing to do with respect to it is
to 'release' by 'shunting' [dissipating] the
TD E/I that's correlated to the 'tragedy' in-
Activate the "inverting reward" mechanism, and
this conducive-to-well-being 'release' becomes
Crying? Same-old, same-old TD E/I-'shunting'
'release' dynamics, but with different affective
See how "fearfully, wonderfully" we are made? :-]
Now, if only our collective 'blindly'-automated
self-Ravaging can be transformed into our mutual
lifting-up of one another, the Possibilities for our
Beings will become Limitless.
ken [k. p. collins]
> This is all fairly easy to Verify, but one must treat
> "laughter" as a 'shunting' operator with respect to
> TD E/I, and not look for other information-content i
> n it. It does communicate, but does not do so with
> respect to language-specific information-content.
>> A first approach that comes to mind is to have naive
> subjects interact with others who are coached to either
> allow laughter or disallow it during interaction, and to
> monitor levels of "stress" in the naive subjects. Use
> standard 'lie-detector' apparatus, EEG, and, if available,
> other scanning methods [tell subjects jokes while their
> heads are held still in a scanner tube - you know,
> sort of like what's been going-on in b.n these 'days'.]
>> You'll get differential correlations, depending on whether
> the coached participants allow or behaviorally-'disallow'
> laughter, and these results will permit the TD E/I-'shunting'
> of laughter to be quantified.
>> The topic is quite rich, and really does need to be
> Formalized. The results will be significant within
> Behavioral Neuroscience.
>> k. p. collins