Some twenty years ago, upon realizing that the structure of stories was actually a model of the mind itself, Chris and I began to wonder if that model could serve as a blueprint and instructions for creating a truly artificial mind.
Today, with the debut of IBM’s Watson and its attendant interest and enthusiasm, it seems the perfect time to revisit those considerations and the conclusions at which we arrived.
What follows is a complete description of Dramatica’s plan for building a thinking and feeling machine that is not only aware, but self-aware as well and how that model is only partially realized by Watson.
To begin with, minds are not exclusively engines of logic. Rather, they are generators of passion as well. Awareness requires only logic. Self-awareness requires emotion as well.
Logic is based on discrete points connected by causal relationships. Emotion is a continually evolving condition that ebbs and flows. In more technical terms, think of logic as made up of particles and emotion as comprised of waves. It is the interaction of the particle and wave natures of the functions of the physical brain and its biochemistry that create the particle/wave nature of the resultant mind that is engendered yet does not reside within the brain.
Simply put, to function as a complete mind a system must include both binary and analog components.
In other words, what we are proposing is that the neural networks of the brain are only half the story. It is the influence of the brain’s biochemistry on the functioning of the neural networks (and vice versa) that creates self-awareness.
Before we proceed, let’s take a moment to define awareness and self-awareness as we will be using them.
Awareness, by Dramatica’s definition in regard to mental functioning, means a system that is affected by and responds to its environment. This response is automatic and completely predictable if the nature of the stimulus and the organization and potentials of the neural network are known.
There is nothing magical about an aware system. Rather, it can fully be explained as a series (or several concurrent parallel series) of causal processes that, once triggered by a stimulus (or simultaneous or progressive stimuli) responds in an absolute manner with no variance other than that interjected by chaotic influences from outside the system.
More conversationally, barring chaos, the same stimuli applied in the same manner and with the same timing will invariably generate the same result.
Self-Awareness (again, by Dramatica’s definition) is a much more complex notion and far more complicated system, first and foremost because it requires an Aware system to already be in place. Self-Awareness is then overlayed upon (or added to as a better descriptor for some purposes) that essential foundation to which is must refer and through which it must translate its functions between itself and the external world at large.
A Self-Aware system is, in contrast, very nearly magical in its properties, which is not to say that the mechanism of its operation is unknowable. In fact, that is the heart and substance of this article.
Essentially, due to the nature of the physical brain’s neurons and neural networks, all activity of a binary nature is driven by the so-called “action potential” between the inside and outside of each neuron’s membrane. Only when the action potential reaches a certain size does it trigger the irrevocable firing of the neuron as a charge is sent down its body to chemical containing boutons which burst, releasing neurotransmitters across a synapse to be received by the awaiting dendrites of a nearby neuron (or neurons).
Simplistically, the biochemical nature of the brain interferes with the binary functioning of the neural networks, adding the element of apparent (though not actual) serendipity to the system, all of which is really based on the mean average of the functions of many nearby neurons converging on each individual neuron to alter the external environment, and thereby contributing to (or removing from) the local action potential of each neuron.
Again, more conversationally, no neuron is an island, and direct communication from one to another is continuously moderated by the local weather that surrounds it.
This, then, is the opening salvo in an assault on the nature of the mind itself. So far, as it is no more than a rough sketch of the concept so as to illuminate the scope of what we are actually professing, it has offered no details, no proofs, and is, therefore, hardly convincing.
It is in the material that follows in which I hope to provide a thorough enough exploration of the topic so as to at least suspend disbelief enough to warrant further investigation and inquiry.
To that end, let us now turn our attention to the inner workings of the Dramatica model, how they ultimately represent the functioning of the mind even unto the physicality of the brain and then sum up with a description of which portions of this model have been implemented in Waston, what remains to be done to create a truly artificial mind, and how that can be brought about through both hardware and software approaches.
As our point of departure to this journey of exploration, let us note that the Dramatica model is a system comprised of two principal parts: a structure (represented in the multi-level Dramatica Chart - download the Original Dramatica Story Structure Chart in PDF) and dynamics (represented in the forces that twist and turn the chart to rearrange its components much as one might alter the patterns of a Rubik’s Cube).
The structural aspect of the model represents the neural networks, binary components, and logical causalities of the mind as made manifest by the biology of the brain. The dynamic aspect of the model represents the varying action potentials, analog components, and emotional progressions of the mind as made manifest by the biochemistry of the brain.
Collectively, the structure and dynamics of the Dramatica model illustrate a complete functional model of a mental system incorporating both Awareness and Self-Awareness.
Though other models are possible and may ultimately better represent this system, it is the theory concepts behind this particular representation that are the core issue of import in this discussion, and the model itself is simply a means to visualize the relationships described .
(In fact, in the early days of Dramatica development, the same data was organized in a number of different models ranging from pyramids to a toroid wrapped in a mobius strip, all of which worked but were ultimately abandoned in favor of the graphic simplicity of the current Dramatic chart and its operations.)
Let us examine first the structural portion of the model as it applies to hierarchies of neural networks and later define the dynamic forces at work upon and in conjunction with it.
The structure, independent of its complementary dynamics, has two parts: the matrix or framework and the items or units held within and organized by that framework.
The units (i.e. Classes, Types, Variations and Elements – each on a different level of the model) represent processes of the human mind. The framework represents the relationships among these mental processes and the manner in which their individual operations bring like processes together into conceptual families, much as the Periodic Table of Elements organizes its components into families such as the Rare Earths or Noble Gases.
The members of each family share certain common traits and relate to one another in distinct, definable, and predictable manners. This is true with the physical elements and, as we shall later see, with the elements of the mind as well.
For now, however, let us concentrate on the elements (units) themselves.
In the Dramatica model, each unit, regardless of its level or position, is not an object per se but represents a distinct and unique process of the mind, in fact, common to all minds.
For example, the Dramatica element “proaction” is not a thing or a state but describe the process by which the mind instigates an action of initiative, as opposed to one of reaction. “Reaction” is in there too, and represents the mental process that leads one to respond (or not) to a stimulus.
(Unlike a simple “Aware” system, a “Self-Aware” system may choose not to respond or react to a direct stimulus – for reasons driven by the action potential-altering variations imposed on the neural network by the local biochemistry as described above and as will be fully explored later in the section on Dynamics.)
To recap then, each of the 148 individually named units in the Dramatica Structural Chart represents an independent, definable, process of the mind and their position in the framework, both laterally and vertically, represents their close or distant association and interaction with all the others.
The structural portion of the model (at the most simplistic appreciation) represents a single, large neural network comprised of 148 different processes. But, as we shall now see, that not only over-simplifies the true nature of the model, but the true nature of the mind as well.
Originally, computers were single network processors. In recent years, consumer-level computers advanced to dual processors (co-processors) and even quad-processors. Watson, as I understand the system (based on a general description) employs many concurrent processors or neural networks, all functioning together to parse different aspects of a problem or purpose.
This sort of relationship among neural networks is described by any one of the four levels of Dramatica model, as each level lays out the necessary kinds of processes required to fully parse a problem or purpose at that level of detail and consideration.
So, for example, the top Class level has only four units and represents the computational power of a standard quad-processor. The next level down, the Type level, has sixteen individual processes and proposes that to completely and most efficiently parse down to the next level of detail (next magnitude of consideration) beyond quad-processing requires sixteen individual neural networks operating in conjunction on various aspects of the task at hand.
The third level of the model (an additional magnitude of detail) requires sixty-four unique units, and by the time we get to the lowest most detailed level it requires sixty-four other unique units, each represented four times in different conjunctions with its neighbors for a total of two hundred and fifty six units representing sixty-four different processes.
(Why the fourth level does not present 256 individual processes will be fully explored later, and actually represents another higher-order overseeing process of the mind. It is intriguing, but too divergent to explore at this early stage of our discussion).
As you may already have suspected, each of the four levels does not operate independently in a planar sense, but also interacts with the levels above and below.
Now this is a truly illuminating concept when applied to computer models of the mind. What the model predicts is not only that co-processors work best in multiples of four and that to completely and efficiently build such a system requires that the processes in each magnitude of four must fulfill very specific functions and relate to one another in very specific ways.
But even beyond that, in order to expand the detail and power of a processing system, larger processes, such as the Classes, must be comprised of smaller sub-processes, such as the Types, which are in turn comprised of even smaller processes, such as the Variations, which in turn are comprised of still smaller processes, the elements themselves.
To get a grip on the significance of this, let us consider Object Oriented Programming. In this system of developing software (such as C++), one does not design all operations as a single overall program. Rather, sub-routines are created (called objects) which can be called by the overall program at any time and assigned to a given task.
This creates an efficiency of effort as processes that are needed more than once do not have to be individually written or even individually included at their appropriate place in the overall program, but merely called into play when needed. This is the computer equivalent of “measure twice, cut once.”
Similarly, the units of Dramatica (at any level) are processes that are treated as objects in the model so we might observe, replicate, and predict how and when the program at large (the combination of our Awareness and Self-Awareness) calls on the processes, in what order, in what frequency, and in what pattern.
Now a program written in an object-oriented language is still a linear proposition on a single processor platform. In a dual-processor environment, the overall program, operating on one processor, can call a second object (process) into play on the second processor while it simultaneous engages in the next process required on its own initial processor. A quad-processor increases the speed and efficiency exponentially, and both the Dual and Quad arrangements move out of the linear realm and even offer the opportunity to engage in some basic pseudo-non-linear operations.
(Why they are “pseudo” non-linear is because they are all still controlled by the overlord program, rather than interacting as equal members of a more democratic lateral hierarchy.)
Rather than having just a single overseeing program, imagine that the top Class level of the Dramatica chart proposes four equal master programs, each affecting and being affected by the other three.
Picture each of the units in the Class level as a non-linear equation. In and of itself, it will progressively alter its output as that output is re-channeled as the value of the variables in the body of the equation itself. In essence, each unit in the Class level is a non-linear process, represented as an object.
Now, imagine that the results of each of the four processes not only feed back to its own unit, but are also added or applied to the results of each of the other three. In such a scenario, the output of each of the non-linear processes now changes and progresses in ways that begin to feel much more organic (not analog yet by any means, but less obviously predictable yet still discernable as meaningful patterns).
Pause for a moment to consider the implications of this intermediary step on our way to a full appreciation of the Dramatica model of the mind. We are proposing that the mind is not a single process but (at the highest or most broad-stroke level) can be best understood as four equally influential non-linear processes affecting each other in an almost relativistic self-regulating manner to create an overall system.
And yet, that is just the top level. We must now consider that the results of each of the four iterative processes are directly and continuously broadcast to the sub-processes beneath it in the second level down. What’s more, because the parent process in any Class is also affected by the output of the other three Classes, their output is indirectly broadcast to the sub-processes beneath the original Class in its altered results.
And so, what alters the functioning of the underlying sub-processes is partly the direct input from above, and also the indirect input from the parents neighbors.
Now, we are going to take some leaps here (rather than belaboring our points), but I feel sufficient groundwork has been so far laid as to provide a solid landing.
The system described does not just apply between two level, but among all four. So, what happens in the processing of any one of the four Classes (of itself and as it is affected by the other three) is ultimately broadcast down all four level of the other three to the very roots of the entire structure.
Conversationally, what happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas. Rather, as a trickle-down theory, all parts of the roots are fed by what happens in all of the leaves.
But wait, as with trees (or branch-trees for that matter), what happens in the roots also nourishes and informs what will be occurring in the leaves.
In other words, this flow of relativistically altered iterative output is not just from the top down, but from the bottom up as well.
Every one of the object units in the Dramatica model represents an independently functioning non-linear process of the mind at one magnitude or another. So, even the tiniest, lowliest process at the very bottom of the model in the most obscure corner is still generating iterative output on its own. And the output of the four units in the family under each parent unit is in fact what defines the operation and function of the parent unit by nature.
Again, conversationally, the children Units define the operations performed by the parent unit, while the output of the parent unit alters the variables of the child units.
And so, the Dramatica model represents a system wherein iterative processes affect one another directly laterally, and directly vertically, but also affect one other indirectly both laterally and vertically, altering not only the values of the variables but the functions of the operations in each independent iterative process.
All of this energy flow crosses over and through itself within the system, creating what might be loosely thought of as an ever evolving interference pattern in which standing waves and troughs rise up, hold their positions for a time, and even migrate through the matrix while maintaining their identities as peaks and troughs but moving on to affect other operations in the system as the action potential of the peak or trough comes into conjunction with other processes.
All of which brings us back to the functioning of neurons, the action potential, and how firing of the neuron occurs not only because of direct or even collective stimulation, but also because of the more analog affect of these migrating peaks and troughs of potential that increase or decrease the opportunity to fire at the local level and then move on through the system to apply their impact elsewhere – all a function of the biochemical side of the system.
And that, quite naturally reaches a point at which to conclude our initial exploration of the structural units of Dramatica and to move on to the remaining half of our structural model – the matrix framework: what it is and how it works. (Keeping in mind that both parts of structure comprise only half of the Dramatica model of the mind – the other half being the dynamics and the forces that alter the dynamics).
The Dramatica structural framework is all based on the quad. The quad is not just a convenient group of boxes into which the process-units of the structure can be placed and organized, but in fact, each quad also represents the nature of each unit and the relationships and interrelationships among all four units.
Each of these relationships can be represented as simple equations, in a truly mathematical sense, and taken together they comprise an exceedingly complex web of iterative interactions. While interesting, the mathematical side is really tangent ( no pun intended) to the task at hand, though I will include some web links at the bottom of this article directly those interested in further self-punishment to some previous articles specifically addressing those topics.
To begin with, the four spaces in each quad represent the following:
In the upper left hand corner is the “K” position, which stands for Knowledge, one of the four principal components of the mind (more on this later).
In the lower right is the “T” position, which stands for Thought. Thought and Knowledge share a relationship not unlike Energy and
As energy can move mass around, so too can thought move distinct elements of knowledge around. In this way, complex massive objects can be created and complex systems of knowledge as well (not unlike the very model we are proposing in something of a self-incursive twist).
In the upper right is Ability, which (for reasons explained elsewhere – again, look for the links at the bottom of this article) is the mental equivalent of Space. A quick explanation in lay, inaccurate “Science Channel” terms would state that just as Mass is in space, but also defines the reaches of space, Knowledge is in Ability and defines its reaches as well. Ability, in short, is an assessment of what we know compared to what we don’t know, just as Space is an assessment of what is there compared to what isn’t. (Told, you – “Science Channel”.)
The fourth space in the lower left is Desire, which is the equivalent of Time – in short, Desire can only be felt by comparing what was to what is or what might be; moderated by the speed of progress toward or away from the preferable state.
Though these four items have been described in almost child-like terms, the equivalent of describing painting by Leonardo using only the primary colors, they serve to get us in the ball park. Again, there are several much deeper articles on the internet that are far more elegant and compelling.
But for our overview understanding of the Dramatica model of the mind, all that is important to know that the relationships among these four items can be set down as T/K = AD. In other, even more obnoxiously simple words, Thought acted upon by Knowledge maintains an equilibrium with the product of Ability and Desire.
So what does that mean? First, consider Ability and Desire. Their product is Desirability. If Ability is zero, no matter how much Desire there is, motivation is zero. If Desire is zero, no matter how much Ability there is, motivation is zero. But for any positive values of Ability and Desire, there will be a certain degree of Desirability.
On the left hand side, Thought is divided by Knowledge - in other words, this equation describes inductive reasoning. Thought, which might go anywhere, is broken up into pieces, parceled out in closed processes as determined by what we know.
So, this particular equation (and there are many) denotes that our inductive reasoning, which drives our assessment of probabilities maintains itself in equilibrium with the Desirability of the subject under consideration. In short speak, our motivation is equal to the possibilities and, conversely, we consider possibilities in proportion to our motivation.
That sounds quite touchy-feely until you consider that with a little algebraic re-arrangement T/K = AD becomes T = KAD, which looks suspiciously like E=MC2. That is why I alluded to Knowledge being like Mass and Thought like energy in the beginning of this section. It is also why Chris and I named the theories pertaining to the mind, rather than to story, Mental Relativity, for they pertain to the relativistic nature of the iterative processes of the mind.
Though these kinds of contentions practically demand proof (or at least serious and detailed explanation), that is really beyond the scope and purpose of this particular article, and is best addressed by the web links at the bottom.
The point at hand is that there are many equations, each relatively simple in itself, but each having a unique nature determined not only by the equation de facto, but also by its relative position in relationship to the other equations represented in the matrix.
In a nutshell, why are there all these terms like proaction or reaction in the structural chart, and why are they positioned where they are? The answer is that the units do not exist independently of the structural matrix but because of it.
Each unit is really the very same process, but because of its position in relation to the other three units in its quad, and those above and below and laterally to it, the relativistic effect of the interacting iterative processes at different magnitudes of parents and children result in a specific systems of balance between internal functioning and external influence that are represented by position in the matrix.
So, the names of the units are arbitrary, in a sense, because it is really the matrix that defines each unit. But, for the model to be understood, other than in a mathematical manner, each unit is named for the nature of the system that unit represents.
And so we find Past in one quad under Universe and we find Memory in another quad under Mind. Because Past and Mind are in the same relative position in their respective quads beneath their parents, it holds true that Past is to Universe as Memory is to Mind.
This startling aspect of the semantics held by the structure is that the entire chart is a complex web of analogies by which any vector between two units on any levels anywhere in the structure share the same semantic relationship as any other two units that can be connected by the same vector.
What’s more, putting the words themselves aside, this means that any two processes of the mind that are connected by specific direct and indirect relationships to any other process share an exactly identical mathematical (relativistic) relationship with any other two mental processes that are connected by exactly the same direct and indirect relationships – regardless of position overall position with the model (the mind) and regardless of the magnitude of one set compared with the other.
This is the heart of the Fractal Psychology concept in Dramatica that states that as individual processes of the mind come together to create an overall process, so too individual minds in the real world come together to create overall psychologies that function identically to the system of the individuals.
As a corollary, it infers that we all share the same underlying psychology – being defined as a system of mind – and that is what makes Dramatica’s model culturally independent, just as the semantics in the structural chart could be replaced with words or symbols from any language, so long as the relationships among their meanings is identical to the relationships among the processes they represent, as dictated by their position in the matrix and the equations which drive it.
Well, it’s all enough to give you a headache. But the final word on the structural side of the model as it pertains to creating a functioning artificial mind is that such a machine must be based on not on an arbitrary number of co-processors, but in groups of four neural networks which share specific relationships among themselves (which can be expressed in mathematical terms) and affect and are affect by each other and by other such families of four that are their parents and their children in a four level hierarchy of sub-processes.
Now, while I have not yet addressed such issues as why four levels, and why do the elements of the bottom level have only sixty-four unique names, each appearing four times in different conjunctions, that is for the wrap up at the end of this entire article.
At this time, we will suspend our discussion of the units and matrix and shift from exploring the structure to examining the dynamics that drive it.
As structure is divided into the units and the matrix, so too are the dynamics divided into two parts: those that rearrange the structure (a la the Rubik’s Cube analogy earlier) and those that rearrange the dynamics themselves.
I’ll begin with the former.
The Dramatica structure appears to be fixed affair – more like a 3D chess set in four levels than a “twist and turn” Rubik’s cube. But that is just because the structural chart simply depicts an untwisted cube in which each side is a single color. In short, it depicts a mind at rest: a mind without an inequity.
There is no such balanced mind. The mind is a machine made of time. Every gear and pulley is a process within a process, like nested Russian dolls. But, if we froze a mind in mid-thought, it would look like the Dramatica chart if it also hadn’t a care in the world.
Without unbalance there is no potential. Without potential there is no motivation. Without motivation there is neither inner consideration nor external activity.
So what is it that creates imbalance so as to propel the mind, and how does that mechanism work, exactly.
Dramatica Dynamics describe the forces that shift the balanced mind out of alignment, creating potential and therefore motivation and activity. This process is called Justification.
Justification is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is just a thing – a process that rearranges processes. Essentially, if we look within ourselves for a solution to a problem and find none, we then look outside ourselves to see if the solution lies there.
In truth, we may actually be the cause of the problem and not see it. This is what eventually leads to such things as the psychological phenomenon of projection in which we attribute qualities to people and things outside ourselves, rather than to ourselves where they belong.
The opposite of this is to attribute qualities to ourselves that really don’t belong to us but to others or to other things. A belief in controlling the world through magic might be considered a projection form of justification. It can also appear as someone blaming themselves for something that isn’t their fault.
The reasons for such manners of thought are quite complex and are again beyond the scope of this article describing how the Dramatica model might be employed to create an artificial mind. But suffice it to say that when we project, we shift the relative positions of where we perceive forces at work from inside to outside or vice versa.
This function (among many others) is represented in the Dramatica model by a dynamic that actually exchanges the positions of an internal unit with an external one. For example, at the top of the Dramatica chart are the four familiar units Universe, Physics, Mind and Psychology. In some stories, Universe and Mind may change positions on their diagonal or Physics and Psychology might along theirs.
When two units shift to each others position along a diagonal line, it is called a “flip” for want of a more psychologically savvy term.
But that isn’t the only way in which units may change places. They might also shift around the quad as if it were a clock, ninety degrees to the right or to the left. This is called a “rotate” again, for want of something less mundane.
It is the combination of flips and rotates at different levels that determine how the model twists and turns from its neutral position into a potential that describes a particular mental state ready to be propelled forward by having wound up the spring of inner potential (a macroscopic fractal of the action potential way back down at the level of the individual neuron).
In Dramatica as it is applied to stories, there are eight dynamic questions which we call the eight essential questions, for it is they that determine all that needs be known to arrive at a complete storyform, save what the subject matter centers is.
Whereas the units in the structure may be thought of as processes driven by Awareness, the dynamics are the forces that act upon the processes driven by Self-Awareness.
Some questions determine whether a given quad will flip, rotate, do both or do neither. Others determine the axis of the flip or the direction of rotate. Still others determine if the flip or rotate will “take the children” from a lower level, or leave them behind when they move. (This represents the nature of cross-level justifications wherein some potentials are isolated to smaller lateral issues only whereas others affect whole quadrants of the mind in many levels at once.)
It is the necessity of nature of the dynamics that no truly human artificial mind might be built without an overlying system that, in fact, breaks an accurate balance among logical relationships and rearranges them in another stable but warped organization.
If we were only Aware, our minds would simply adapt or react to the momentary environment around us. When the environment changed, so would we. But with Self-Awareness, a mechanism exists by which we refuse to adapt and choose not to react, but rather warp ourselves to maintain the potential (motivation) to return to our original form at a later time.
In this manner we “hope” to outlast or create situations that are more in line with our inner arrangement than to simple match ourselves to whatever is.
Because of this delay factor in responding to stimuli in our environment, and because our individual experiences are all different (from the microscopic to the macroscopic) we are all twisted and turned into different configurations, yet share a common psychological system of Self-Awareness that even allows conditions such as neuroses to be diagnosed and treated, even though they may have been caused by complete different events.
There is far more to the dynamic side of the model than this, but to fully understand its functioning beyond being the driver of mental potential would require far too much time and many diagrams that, again, would divert from the purpose at large of this article.
And so, to the point, we leave behind our brief discussion of the Dynamics that drive the structure and turn our attention to the fourth and final aspect of the model, the other half of the Dynamic side, the forces that alter the Dynamics.
Earlier I mentioned the dynamic questions that determined flip, rotate, both or neither. Other questions determine which axis to flip and/or which direction to rotate. And the final group determined whether or not to take the children.
But there is a forth sort of question that alters the way the dynamics function. For example, if the dynamics have determined that a given quad is going to flip one way and rotate in a particular direction, this other manner of question might determine whether the flip or the rotate will be applied first.
Such a question might be the mental sex of the mind under study. Independent of physical gender is the gender of the mind – not as being masculine or feminine but as being spatially oriented or temporally oriented.
All Self-Aware minds explore their world in terms of Space and Time. (Aware minds only respond to Mass and Energy) It is the nature of Self-Awareness to justify, and thereby to create a delay factor in which the mind is able to recall an earlier situation and compare it to the current situation as our temporal thinking. Seeing patterns as opposed to just responding to substance is the spatial equivalent, born of the justification delay.
In spatial thinking we not only observe X, but can recall X while observing Y and thereby learn something of the relationship between X and Y – in essence, discerning a pattern.
In temporal thinking we not only experience situation W but also recall situation Z and thereby can cast a value judgment between the two – in essence, determining a preference. This is one illustration of why Desire is tied to Time, from a previous discussion.
Spatial thinkers first see the spatial patterns and then consider the temporal progression. Temporal thinkers first grasp the progression, then see the patterns.
Our Spatial sense is represented in our logic, or temporal sense in our feelings. We all have logic and feelings, but which one is our initial filter on our environment and which is the secondary filter is divided very nearly along gender lines.
It should be noted that male logic is not superior to female logic for they are both the same things. And female feelings are not superior to male feelings because they are the same. But women shade their logic with feeling and men temper their feelings with logic, creating two different systems at a foundational level, making each kind of mind adept at primary observation of space or time and secondary observation of the others.
Still, in the Dramatica model, this has nothing to do with the units in the structure. It has nothing to do with the construction of the matrix framework. It has nothing to do with the dynamics. It only affects one fourth of the forces that work on the structure to twist and turn it.
And yet, because every twist and turn is multiplied in its impact by the forces that work from quad to quad and level to level, a simple yet powerful difference emerges in the male mind model and the female mind model. In essence, where women see men as being very similar – say out of phase, men see women as being quite different, say 270 degrees out of phase. As a visual, place a man in a quad and a woman in the space next to him. They are both 90 and 270 degrees out of phase, depending on which way around the circle of the quad you rotate.
That is the essence of Mental Sex. There are very sound reasons to support mental sex based on neurology and also reasons why a mind must have a temporal or spatial bias or risk grid-locking in certain calculations. But again, that is beyond the scope of this article, and you will find links to early works on this topic at the bottom.
Finally, to sum up and simplify all that has been stated so far, no single processor or single neural network will every support a truly self-aware mind. No combination parallel processors or lateral neural networks, no matter how plentiful, will engender true self-awareness.
It is only through nested levels of iterative processes arranged in relationships as described by the quads (that mirror Mass, Energy, Space, and Time and their mental equivalents, Knowledge, Thought, Ability, and Desire) that affect an are affect by the output of each other, both laterally and vertically that a true relativistic self-aware entity might artificially be created.
Simplified, as promised, man (or woman) does not think by logic alone. It is the blending of logic and feeling, space and time, binary and analog, particle and wave, both in opposition and combination that creates all the shades and splendor of the minds we call our own and the minds we may build.
Indicators of Justification
Human Sexuality 101
Where Mental Sex is Headed
Original Mental Relativity Booklet (pdf)