My sincere thanks to all the people who have taken the time to make their comments, ask questions, and provide their constructive criticisms. This page is a reflection of their efforts.

Sometimes "On the origin of Mind" sounds like philosophy or politics - but is it science?
It is true that Otoom uses philosophical tracts to explain the functional dynamics of the mind from the top down. It is also true that the model addresses political issues in the past and present. But that's because it represents a formal framework that now makes such an approach possible. Its elements - functional subsets in their own right - can be explicitly described, referenced to examples from the real, and replicated in the computer program. Political events etc are seen as systems, operating within larger systems (for example, in society), and thereby can be analysed in terms of their inherent validity measured against their environment. The model does not need nor does it attempt to enter into judgments of a philosophical, religious, or moral kind.

But the section Parallels for instance certainly contains critical comments!
True, however they are made in terms of a particular system's situatedness within its culture, an overriding system itself. Other cultures follow different guidelines and under those auspices some development may have different ramifications. Nevertheless, since all such systems do answer to fundamental dynamics that are applicable to humans in general or indeed life, some events are more destructive than others regardless of where they occur.

In how far is the article "How the mind works.." comparable to the entire work?
As the title suggests, it deals with the principle dynamics. The connections to higher-scale phenomena in the thoughts of an individual or in society at large are touched upon, but for reasons of space and format could not be entered into. Both, the article and Otoom, contain nothing that cannot be referenced to events in the real, but Otoom goes into far greater detail extending to various scales.

What is the essential difference between Otoom and other mind models?
To some extent it depends on what other models are considered. However, it all starts with a perspective that places functionality ahead of content. This may sound trivial, but the effects are significant. And if it does sound trivial, chances are it hasn't been fully understood!

What exactly is meant by functionality?
The dictionary definition of the word 'functional' is "pertaining to a function". Its noun is therefore the property of being functional. Regardless of what philosophers, cognitive scientists or artificial intelligence researchers have added throughout the years, I prefer to stay with the basic meaning. If a number of nodes in the matrix, or a number of neurons in the brain act together within the context of some process that can be identified at a higher level of observation, then such a cluster can be tagged with a certain functionality - its type descriptor would have to be meaningful in relation to the process. For example, if in the program a particular input caused a green patch to appear in the output field on the screen, then one can say the participating nodes were of a functional type related to green. If subsequent input changed the colour to red, either the original nodes changed their functionality, or another cluster became more influential in terms of its own functionality. At the higher scale of society a concept can be informative about something, it could also be deemed inflammatory. Both are its functionalities, and if a confrontation ensues it was due to this particular functionality. Naturally, for one or the other to have any effect there has to be an affinity in its surrounds. It also aids better conceptualisation. Let's say we could substitute the expression 'type of behaviour' in a particular context. Although it may be correct as such, it can lead one to think of it as a stand-alone manifestation - should it become invisible to an observer for whatever reason the tendency is to assume it has disappeared. Thinking of it as a type of functionality however we remain aware of its owner still existing, and the focus is on that owner's nature under those circumstances. In this case the behaviour type may have become latent only and nothing has changed within the owner.

Here is another example of how the concept of functionality can be applied, this time in the area of meteorology.

So what's an affinity?
The basic definition is "an inherent likeness or agreement between things". If the functionality of a node cluster is such that another will maintain its nature (ie, its functionality) rather than change or destroy it, then there is an affinity between these two clusters. Similarly, if two ideas can coexist side by side such that neither is sufficiently influenced by the other to change their nature, then there is an affinity between the two. Since the current inherent nature or state of nodes and/or neurons is due to the interdependent processes among the network and based on the chaos-type behaviour of attractors, an affinity is not a random event but the outcome of a specifically configured dynamical space - configured in terms of the existing functionalities. These can be seen as forever shrinking, expanding, altering, morphing, fragmenting, emerging, domains; their actual role is determined by the attributes they have acquired along the way.

How can functionality be applied to society?
By observing the functional dynamics operating there, analysing their interdependencies, and considering what they mean in terms of object-related content. Here's an analogy from computer graphics. To render a scene certain parameters need to be considered, such as the material of a surface, its texture, its bump height, the ambient, specular, etc colour; then come the lights, their position, their intensity, colour, scale; next we have the cameras with their own angles, focal lengths, f-stops, and so on. All these are the features belonging to an object, and it doesn't matter what the object is - whether it's a cube, a building, or a human form for that matter. For the computer to render the scene it needs to know those parameters in order to calculate literally every single point of the object. In order to render that scene then all of these parameters need to be identified and chosen, and only then will the result be meaningful. CG artists of course have such detail at their fingertips, and they step through the development of a scene by being aware of the interdependencies, in other words, the effect of selecting some texture under certain lighting conditions for instance. The point is, those features are the functionalities accompanying an object, and whatever the object may be, disregarding them leads to problems. Objects are important too, but in overall terms it is functionalities which first and foremost determine the nature of a scene - objects come later. The functionalities identified and described under the Otoom perspective are the characteristics which determine the nature of our behaviour, and whether humans are male or female, short or tall, their manifested behaviour is a result of their inherent functionalities, in existence at the time. It gets complex once we consider the feedback process in dynamic systems, and the mutual affinities between subsystems. But that's life - in a very real sense.

Where does latency come into all this?
'Latent' means "existing, but not (yet) visible". A domain with a certain functionality acts on its neighbours, giving rise to the observation in the first place. However, it turns out that the potential for exercising some functionality can exist already, although it is not visible at the time. In the program for instance, among the matrix nodes there can be a functional domain producing green; it's obvious, and coming from some input, say I1. Further input, I2, changes the patch to blue; also obvious. But now some still different input I3 lets the colour green re-emerge, even though without their history behind them the same nodes do not produce green with I3 only. This kind of thing happens all the time, and indicates a functional latency on behalf of those nodes. When eventually realised the latency does not produce an exact copy of the previous re-representative content. The difference depends on such factors as the size of the cluster, the time interval between inputs, and the difference in the inputs themselves. The outcomes look remarkably similar to results obtained from research into false memory syndrome. I would argue that 'memory' ultimately represents the realised functionalities of latencies among participating neurons. But much research needs to be done there, as hinted at in further developments.

How much of the computer model can be applied to the mind?
In terms of its displayed functionalities, just about everything. It's one of the advantages of using functionalities rather than content. The content in the program differs from what the mind would contain - at least so far. But because functionalities can be scaled up or down, the relevance does not depend on specific instantiations of content - it's not what the program does but how it does it which is important.

What type of neural network does the computer model represent?
It does not resemble any of the more or less traditional networks (eg, Hopfields, back-propagation types, SOMs...) for three fundamental reasons: (1) although having predetermined connections between the nodes the respective efficacy of these connections changes during the processing cycles; (2) there are no established layers, and the nodes become part of clusters or disengage according to their mutual affinity relationships; (3) there are no conventional threshold functions, but the effect of one of the other node and/or domain on others depends entirely on their realisable functionalities, ie their latency. Another way of looking at it is to compare Western-style thinking to say, the perception of a Taoist. The former seeks to consciously detail every aspect of life, whereas to the other existence represents a whole which is indescribable through its elements. Both have their pros and cons (the 'fuzziness' of Taoist thought is counter-balanced by the formal framework based on functionality in Otoom). Robots so far incorporate rule sets for each and every eventuality, a 'from the outside-in' type of regulation. OtoomCM on the other hand develops its rule sets from the broad pattern of inputs, it lets them emerge from within. And yes, this can be simulated in a computer program. While a rule applied from the outside will make the program and/or robot perform precisely according to the algorithm, emergent rules provide for any eventuality that can be learned about. The only limitation lies in the number of nodes. All in all it is a highly dynamical, pattern-seeking, self-organising system - a pretty useful definition for Life itself, I would think.

So what 'drives' the whole thing?
In the computer model, energy and input from outside, the inherent complexity of the nodes themselves, and the algorithm producing attractor-type states among the nodes. For the algorithm itself see page 9 of the IPSI-2005 Venice paper. Much like the biological counterpart really, except for the algorithm which is a simulation of the processes taking place due to the - functional! - richness of neuron cells made possible through autocatalytic closure (see the IPSI paper).

What does the algorithm actually do?
Although a formula can be understood purely in mathematical terms, sometimes it is difficult to conceptualise its nature. So I'll explain it through a metaphor. Suppose we have two large bodies, situated in space (imagine two planets but without the star). Both have gravity because of their mass and therefore act as attractors in relation to each other. Suppose further each of them is surrounded by a medium which, due to the gravity, gets denser as we get closer to the surface (something like water - from steam to an ever denser liquid). Since they float in space we can play the outside observer and see both as moving, or we can see one or the other as being stationary and the other moving. Let's remain with the latter view and let us call the "stationary" body Ref, the other Res. Res is drawn towards Ref because of gravity, hence the closer it gets the greater the speed. But the closer it gets the denser the medium which tends to act against the acceleration induced by the forces of gravity. There are three possible outcomes, depending on the angle at which Res moves towards Ref. If the angle is within a relatively small range from the vertical, Res will close in and eventually end up on the surface of Ref. Increase the angle and there comes a point when Res will get closer but then the medium becomes sufficiently dense for Res to be deflected away from Ref. The result is that Res will glance off, skip back into space for a certain distance until gravity has slowed it down again and causes it to turn back, until it hits the dense region once again, makes it skip off until it is being pulled back by gravity, returns, and so on and so on. The result is an oscillating trajectory, with Res never escaping into space but never hitting the surface of Ref either. Increase the angle further and the continuous movement away from and back to Ref will occur too, but now the trajectory is no longer regular but becomes erratic. Given that in actuality both bodies, Ref and Res, are moving, either one of the three outcomes is possible. In the algorithm Ref becomes the reference value, Res is the resident value, and the main purpose of the formula is to change the size of the resident value until it ends up as the reference value. If we let the resident value adopt a series of numbers (the reference value remaining "stationary" for the time being), the graph depicting the results from the algorithm will either show a convergence with the reference value, or an oscillation in relation to the reference, or a seemingly random fluctuation. We can term the reference value an attractor, and, depending on the outcome, we have a stable attractor (convergence), or a periodic attractor (oscillation), or a strange one (fluctuation). Every element in each matrix node acts as an attractor at some time, and the target is the equivalent element in the next node. The outcomes (within their own possible range of variance) configure the node overall, and at the next level of complexity determine the degree of affinity between the two nodes. From the nodes we get to clusters of nodes and then to domains, their respective states standing for the re-representative quality in relation to the input. The algorithm is part of the feedback loop in this chaotic system.

The program is written for DOS. Is there a more sophisticated version available?
The reason it has been written for DOS is that it at least allows one to run the program not only in DOS itself but also under Windows. But it also means that the entire code can be compiled under Unix or Linux without any changes to be made. Had it been written for Windows just about every function would have to be renamed and possibly modified because Windows altered most functions to serve its own purpose (this doesn't happen in the context of Open Source). To be properly experimented with the program needs to be scaled up, from the maximal 500-odd matrix nodes here to literally millions and millions of them. It also needs to be transposed into a distributive mode - not a problem under Unix but virtually impossible on a desktop machine.

Your program doesn't run!
Yes it does. You need to follow the manual. At the risk of sounding patronising, one really needs to read the manual. Keep in mind that OtoomCM and its derivations are a test platform. As such it is open to inspection, the code can be analysed and even be played around with (if you are so inclined). The present format allows everything to be seen, from the most simple to the more complicated functions. So, if you really want to confirm that the program does what I claim it does you can do so. In OWorm for example there are over 12,000 lines of code (including the header file), not that large by any standard but it does take some time to go through.

Isn't scientific research usually introduced via universities or journals?
If a researcher is associated with a university or an institute its sheer presence provides the means to disseminate new findings. The researcher uses the publicity to support the university and vice versa. It's a powerful marketing machine that is not available in this case. Journal articles are restricted in size, a real issue when it comes to wider-spanning concepts. In addition, when the importance and usefulness of research results makes them necessary for wider society the traditional way of waiting for years to come to the fore is not an option. Because of my problems with Griffith University the mutual support through affiliation is not available to me. It means that from the outset my perceived status makes it that much more difficult to take this work seriously; as a consequence hardly anyone decides to engage with it in a serious manner. In a wider sense the resulting effects prevent the model to be used as constructively as it could be by decision makers in wider society here and there. For that reason alone the issue with Griffith needs to be resolved one way or another.

Some of the issues raised in further developments sound almost metaphysical.
They do so because so far these kind of considerations had indeed been the prerogative of metaphysics. They are not esoteric musings by some philosopher however - their significance derives from a knowledge base that is formal, analytical, and repeatable.

Regarding the Parallels, how do you justify making the connection with Otoom?
By identifying the functional drivers of human behaviour at any given time, their potential for domain forming or its opposite can be ascertained as well. The approach follows the same lines of argument as in the computer model, although on a much larger scale and hence higher sophistication. The observations made there have already been highlighted in the main work, "On the origin of Mind", and are therefore not modifications after the fact. To remain technically consistent I have used expressions which are in line with Otoom's context, but on the other hand that can render them somewhat obscure for the outsider. As a consequence sometimes the explanations on these pages may not be all that clear. In any case, I have estimated that to explain the model comprehensively to a student in something like a university course two semesters would be needed (assuming two lectures per week). But what can I do - the mind is anything but simple! Still, "On the origin.." contains 968 references confirming the consistency and validity of the model, the program OWorm has been subjected to 560 tests and as for the Parallels, at the end of May 2010 there were over 220 events collected from around the world that confirm the model after the work was completed - and counting.

The book is now available for purchase in e-book format.

Are certain outlooks outlined in the Parallels really that bleak?
Firstly, history alone teaches us that no civilisation has lasted forever, and no society has been free of calamities during its life span. If one or the other scenario seems far-fetched it does so because there is the assumption what happened to one section of humanity cannot happen to another ("It won't happen to me" writ large). It can and it does. What usually changes is the specific content - but again, once the focus is on functionality the significance of a development can be analysed without getting stuck on local specifics.

What then are the major problem areas as seen under Otoom?
The overall message is, the less the members of any human activity system phantasise about their world, the more effective they are regardless of the actual conditions. One can interpret this from both directions: external pressure will be handled better, and/or less mistakes will be made leading to fewer problematic situations in the first place. The main dangers in terms of their volume and strength in the world of today are, the influence of ideology through politics as well as religions (a mentality that attacks what is good and reveres what is bad), polarisation between winners and losers packed into ever tightening spaces (concepts about survival flourish but evolution withers), the panorama of climate change (affected environments have the potential to exacerbate the existent perceptions of their residents), the weakening of dominant cultures (the acquired skills for authority dissolve and control is handed to brutish newcomers). The dynamics involved in any of the above exist at every scale - from the mind of an individual to society to global interactions.

Suppose the predictions are true, how realistic are our chances of avoiding them?
Otoom does not describe some utopia. That is to say, nothing therein is of the 'if only' kind. It means that within the overall confluence of ideas, desires, and initiatives some will always grate against some others - the nature of human activity systems sees to it. On the other hand, the abstractive ability of humans enables us to engage in 'what if' scenarios and thereby posit one possibility and its potential against another, provided of course the definition of the problem is of sufficient quality. It's a matter of asking the right question, or, as programmers like to say, "garbage in, garbage out".

What's the idea with the Otoom fractal?
It is a specially formulated Mandelbrot set - in the direct sense of the word! These sets appear similar at any level of magnification, are too irregular to be easily described, are self-similar, and have a simple and recursive definition. Exactly like the manifested dynamics in the Otoom computer programs and the identifiable thought structures in cognition (in fact, the programs' algorithm produces attractor-based affinity relationships). The intricate detail of this particular fractal can be seen in the posters, freely available for download. The zoom-ins are up to 1 million. Read about the full technical definition.

Is there one way to summarise the entire model?
I'll try. In the mind we have system that consists of a multitude of elements, such that their respective multifaceted nature is capable of responding to input in terms of specific patterns. These patterns define themselves through their material composition at its level of manifestation. The larger the system, the more specific these patterns can be in relation to variance in input. In doing so the elements attain a representative quality, which through feedback loops between themselves and their input become standardised to a certain degree. The patterns emerge from the inside outwards, as does the standardisation. There are no meta-rules imposed from above. The rules, such as they are, define themselves through the process of their emerging complexity at any level of manifestation. Such a system is highly scalable. In terms of type it may well be the super set of reality itself.

See here for a quote from the book which describes the process of the emerging mind.

Is Otoom another version of Dynamicism, are you a Connectionist, what about GOFAI?
These are the kind of questions I dread. Take a day off, if you must, and spend it on searching the internet for anything that comes up under 'dynamicism', 'connectionist', or 'GOFAI' (good old-fashioned artificial intelligence) - on second thought take one day off for each of the labels. Afterwards you will have learned two things. Firstly, expecting to cover them in just three days is a perfect example of ridiculous optimism; and two, the longer you spend your life's precious hours wading through the oncoming tsunami the less you will be able to give a concise definition of what they all mean. On the other hand, you could read the article Minds, Machines and Searle 2: What's Right and Wrong About the Chinese Room Argument by Stevan Harnad, which has the polite sarcasm I wish more people had the courage to generate. In other words, Otoom is a functional model of complex, dynamic systems that, regardless of what this or that algorithm says or what this or that neuronal network demands, describes the processes as we find them in reality. Actually dealing with complex, dynamic systems in terms of their complexity and dynamicism as inherent features (and not as short-cuts for lengthy hypotheses) is not all that new. But sometimes I get the feeling certain people see the idea of complex systems as a panacea for all the world's problems. Otoom does no such thing. Of course, understanding what is happening is a prerequisite for a solution; yet just as cooperation, wider awareness and empathy and such are a feature of complexity, so are disintegration, hate, and war. Therefore the model describes the world, warts and all. You could call it punk science (not to be confused with the book Punk Science by the way). Furthermore, anyone suggesting a hypothesis about the mind should be able to address human behaviour through their model; after all, this is what understanding the mind is all about. Questions about the Iraq war for instance, or the nature of various demographics and their mutual interaction, or about religion and ideology should be feasible to ask. None of the constructs mentioned above even attempts to do that.

Regarding "On the origin of Mind" you claim on the buy page, "There is no other book like it" - what exactly do you mean by that?
Two things. Firstly, there is no other book which deconstructs 21 major philosophies (if you discount Plato who is represented through Socrates) in a formal manner to demonstrate the nature and relations of thought structures. It can be done once you have an appropriate framework that allows you to do that. Within the Otoom framework those thought structures, whether observed in antiquity or the present, can be shown to be consistent and repeatable. Secondly, I justify my claim through circumstantial evidence. Here's an analogy. Suppose you focus on a particular society and think that its members have developed the internal combustion engine, but you don't know of any text that specifically mentions this. However, you can go through any literature related to cars and their surrounding issues and focus on any reference which could only have been expressed in that way if internal combustion engines are indeed known. Therefore, to find a direct reference is not necessary to justify your assumption. Same here. I have not read each and every piece of writing ever published trying to explain how the mind works. On the other hand, some of the dynamics listed in Otoom are so fundamental to the system that at least some trace of them must surely be alluded to when theorising about the system of mind in other contexts. I have not found any such traces, and I did go through a considerable amount of this kind of literature. For example, two books just recently published, Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop" and Richard Dawkins' "The God Illusion", touch at various times on the mind and what is known about it (outside Otoom of course). There is no hint of the underlying dynamics (which is not to disparage the authors' work). Furthermore, once you start from the basis Otoom provides, a number of vistas open that previously were inaccessible. Again, in the field of politics, social science and such, there is no indication that such knowledge has been available to the respective players even though it would have been a definite advantage at the time. One could also add that due to Otoom's highly interdisciplinary nature, findings from many fields (artificial intelligence, cognitive, political, and social science, psychology, anthropology, and yes, philosophy) have been placed in an overriding, comprehensive context. They are like pieces in a mosaic that so far existed in isolation from each other. Otoom puts them on a canvas where they coexist without any discrepancy or the need to make exceptions because the underlying connections are missing. Instead, the whole picture is now complete and seamless.

Why the blog? You've got the forum.
The forum is meant for discussions about anything on the Otoom website or related topic. The blog is a way to flesh out the Otoom model. "About this blog" on the left there is an allegory on the background, and the posts either describe some action or they refer to an issue where the model is relevant. Needless to say, anything written there can be confirmed in the real. See here for a list of topics.

Finally, what drives you?
Understanding how the mind works opens so many vistas. I think the biggest problem in the world is stupidity. Only two things can move me to tears: an act of sheer beauty and a display of stupidity. Being able to spot either at their very source helps immeasurably. In the first case we can see evolution at its glittering best, and in the other we can prevent the descent into brutishness.