RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 19 2000 - 22:27:26 BST

  • Next message: Tim Rhodes: "Re: Cons and Facades"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA29427 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:13:17 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
    Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:27:26 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEMNCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    Importance: Normal
    In-Reply-To: <200006191903.PAA02490@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    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: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Joe E. Dees
    > Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2000 5:07
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
    >
    >
    > Truths are inductively reached, probable and statistical, and
    > therefore provisional, and may be corroborated but never absolutely
    > confirmed, although they may asymptotically approach such
    > certainty to .999+, for the possibility in principle must be retained
    > that future data may indeed contradict them, rendering them false
    > or forcing a modification (science works this way).

    really, so some days you exist and other days you dont? :-) I dont think
    there is any probability involved when dealing with self. Probability only
    emerges when you move into group analysis, harmonics analysis of a whole etc
    Furthermore the feeling of truth is an absolute, EITHER/OR state, when you
    REFLECT on this you move into BOTH/AND states and secondary processes that
    include increased consideration of negation. Here you move into playing with
    the true/false dichotomy that includes the mixing of the elements of that
    dichotomy such that there is an increase in concepts that 'round the edges'
    of the original EITHER/OR distinctions and you enter relativist thinking
    areas (secondary thinking) and the world of statistical interpretations;
    fourier transforms rather than square waves.

    There IS a sense of 'truth', a feeling 'rightness', 'correctness' that we
    all have and that feeling is very EITHER/OR, absolute, even if it can be
    wrong.

      Or truths are
    > deductively reached and in the final analysis tautological, being the
    > entailed consequences of assumed axioms in some logical or
    > mathematical abstract ideal conceptual microworld. The difference
    > between truth and belief is the presence or absence of evidence; if
    > there is evidence for X, then X is (provisionally) a truth; if
    > there is not,
    > then X is a belief.

    you left out abduction. Induction moves from particulars to a general and
    results in hypothesis formation. Initially there is no hypothesis and so no
    causal process; induction leads or the creation of a model of a causal
    process.

    Deduction works from a general (hypothesis) to a particular.

    Abduction works from a particular to validate a general; the direction is
    like induction but there is a causal principle behind things. Adduction
    comes from secondary thinking where there is the assumption of meaning, thus
    I discover a particular pattern that I assume is 'meaningful'. To establish
    the meaning I flip through contexts until I find a fit. The other form is
    where I come across a particular pattern that immediately brings a
    context/hypothesis/principle to mind, thus abduction has within it two
    formats, known and unknown.

    Note that the context flipping can lead to innovations ( a novel pattern
    emerges) as well as illusions/delusions.

    The linking of a local distinction to a general elicits a feeling of
    'correctness', a sense of absolute. Analysis, secondary thinking, leads to
    the emergence of relativist concepts of truth but there is a FEELING that is
    tracable back to reptilian/fish behaviour manifest in the mapping of
    territory and the 'mine/not mine' dichotomy that is absolute. Compensatory
    behaviours emerge where there is doubt and you move into relativist areas
    where you have to include the perspectives of others (other fish, lizards,
    or humans).

    Best,

    Chris.

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Jun 19 2000 - 22:14:07 BST