“Oh great”, everybody’s thinking, “this is turning into one of those blogs.” Well, hang on a sec :-). I’m beginning to flesh out the conception of mental archetypes as being like katamari balls bouncing around in the perceptual lobes (that is, parietal and occipital). I’ve previously described the construction process for paradigms <- required reading.
I'm starting to think that the brain takes two perceptions, recorded as raw perceptual data, and compares them for similarities. If they meet a certain threshold of similarities, they "stick" together. So maybe my eyes send the message (11110101, 00001110, 00001110) to the occipital, and then (11010111, 00000001, 00000001). The occipital thinks "both of those have pretty high numbers in the first part, let's just call them both 'red'." That's easier to remember. So instead of thinking "Today I saw two fire trucks, one was (11110101, 00001110, 00001110) and the other was (11010111, 00000001, 00000001)" the brain remembers "Today I saw two red fire trucks."
After a number of observations, we decide that fire trucks are almost always red. The brain stops paying attention to the color of the fire trucks unless the color is something unexpected, like green. Our perceptive faculties are still operating at full capacity, but the processing only takes in as much data as is necessary to produce the conviction "this perception is a fire truck, because it is very similar to previous fire trucks". This is stored in memory as "normal fire truck", and the rest of the data is thrown out. Later, if someone asked me what color the fire truck was, I'd say it was red. I don't remember the specific vision of the fire truck, but normal fire trucks are red and I don't remember the fire truck being abnormal in that way.
If the fire truck were green, I would probably take notice and record this in memory as "green fire truck". This violates my predictive internal model, which says that fire trucks are red, but the rest of the data suggests that it is still a fire truck. This is a more efficient processing style. I might eventually revise my internal, predictive model to "fire trucks are red, except in the next county over they are green". This would seem to be the basis of semantic memory, vs. eidetic memory.
If the fire truck were several miles tall and the front had the humongous face of a demon grinning with wicked intent, my perceptual faculties would engage in a different way. All information would be stored, even the red color, because I am not perceiving “a fire truck”. The violations of expectation are too egregious (even if the color were still red), and the experience is recorded in eidetic memory for processing later (perhaps compulsive processing, as in PTSD).
The phase change between these two processing styles tends to occur after a certain critical mass of experience, neuron density (in the particular processing region), and average paradigm volume. This is where TT adolescence kicks in: having collected a large number of these archetypes, the hindbrain start trying to coalesce these paradigms together into more efficient, more all-encompassing theories. Most people never reach this stage of cognition because they lack the prerequisites: volume in the processing regions, and extra brain development time due to delayed maturation (due to k-selection). They are, therefore, unable to achieve a neurotypical IQ higher than about 130-140, because their processing style is inefficient and they are unable to perceive and apply pattern-based reasoning.
At this stage, true creativity becomes possible. In the presence of high neurotypical IQ and conscientiousness, this creativity transitions to genius. Whenever two larger frameworks come together as one, giant katamari, an all-red state occurs to mark the “Eureka” moment, which is the moment when the brain realizes the two systems are compatible. The all-yellow “exposition” state marks the time for one framework to dissolve into the other, depending on which was the more general or explanatory. This exposition period also includes the formation of a large number of new ideas, suggested by the logic of one system within the framework of the other.