Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA27090 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:28:15 GMT Message-ID: <001701bf91e4$f381bc00$5c0bbed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <4.1.20000319003517.00cbe4d0@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> Subject: Re: Re:Complete Thoughts Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:40:59 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Plante <dplante@home.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 9:36 AM
Subject: Re:Complete Thoughts
>
> The success (relative fitness) of any given culture rests on its ability
to
> both manifest written language AND reduce individual variations in
> interpretation by "inventing" things like dictionaries, encyclopedias and
> compulsory public education. Am I correctly responding to the gist of your
> point?
>
> Dan
>
>
> At 09:13 PM 18/03/00 +0100 Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> Dan Plante wrote this on 16/03/2000
>
> <A sentence is a Complete Thought>
>
> I agree on the <Written> aspect of the problem.Indeed only written down
you
> have then a ' complete thought',but nothing more than that!!
> "Betty went",is without any feedback,it is a hard cold statement without
any
> brainactivity which explains,do the explaining whatever must be explained.
>
> I said it before and I say it again,in the real meaning of the words "
complete
> thought" you have to count in all the possible angles of the problem,all
the
> possible associations with that thought make up its ' completeness'.
>
<It is of course easier for all of us to have dictionaries,encyclopedias and
compulsary public education,otherwise we should not understand eachother
at all,but the gist of my point is,in spite of all what is written down in
books,on computer-discs etc. that we still (must) have individual levels of
interpretation.
When I write " Betty went " is it just a cold hard naked fact,nothing more!!
It is a complete thought in that sense that you,me and everybody else don't
have (or need) any feedback about who is Betty,where is she gone to,with
whom,for what,is she gone by car,with the bus,metro!?
That is in the meaning assumed in the words ' complete thought ' not even
necessary,you have there all the info you need!
" Betty went "_period!!
But in an abstract way,with out human way of thinking that isn't so simple.
When we write " Betty went "_our mind is continually making up " associ-
tions'_where is Betty gone to...etc.
To conclude,that what you say is as a " complete thought " includes not only
the plain naked fact,as we do all understand it,Betty went,but also all the
characters of all the interrelations.
That is,all what possible can be coded in the sentence/phrase " Betty went "
makes up the 'completeness ' of the thought.Without those,and we must
taken this to its logical consequences,our thoughts,any thought for that
matter
is never ' complete '_there are still elaborations to be carried out.
That is,in my viewpoint_the structure of thought is fractal,it's like a
never-
ending story.
Regards,
Kenneth
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 20:28:27 GMT