Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07636 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:48:06 +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 23:02:00 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOENBCGAA.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: <4.1.20000620020444.01ef0f00@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> 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 Dan Plante
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2000 7:42
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>
>
>
> Chris: I pretty much agree with all that you said below (which is more or
> less what you've been saying for quite a while now, of course), mostly
> because it underscores what I've said for years as well, but at a higher
> level of abstraction (you must be right because you have the same
> opinion I
> do ;-).
>
> A small portion of it I'm not sure I follow - I'll have to sleep
> on it then
> read it again. Also, the waypoint rationale seems a little contrived to me
> ..... maybe I'm wrong, but why couldn't the basis for this be even more
> primal, and adapted for waypoint mapping purposes later on? Maybe an even
> more primitive aquatic organism had a proto-limbic food/not-food or
> mate/not-mate response system to visual cues or even chemical
> markers, that
> later synergistically reacted to some other mutation(s) that proved to be
> dynamically stable because their phenotypic expression fed back as a
> waypointing advantage?
>
> On the other hand, I guess we could keep leap-frogging emergent
> dependancies all the way back to the pre-biotic (or even further), so the
> point is probably moot, especially since testing the validity of your
> analyses does not require it, from what I can tell.
>
> By the way, I've also had an enduring interest in the MBTI system, and
> others of its ilk. I also understand that more current, and
> presumably more
> accurate hybrid systems exist. These, along with a vector-math treatment
> are, I think, one half of the key to constructing a predictive model of
> social-memes. Do you have any current link-lists for these newer systems?
> Do you know if the algorithms are available for us common folk or are they
> proprietary? Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> At 06:41 PM 20/06/00 +1000 Chris Lofting wrote:
> >
> >> -----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 8:38
> >> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> Feee-Lings! Ohh, ohh, ohh Feee-Lings! ;~) I thought we were
> >> discussing not what one felt to be true, or wished to be true, or
> >> believed to be true, but what one could logically, rationally and
> >> reasonably maintain to be true, and this requires evidence of some
> >> sort or other beyond one's emotional proclivities (unless what one
> >> is maintaining is not the truth of X, but that one feels X is true).
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >Logic and rationality are not 'feelings free'. Logic and rationality are
> >based on syntax processes linked to the basic feeling of
> correct/incorrect;
> >we do not go past these distinctions, we do not amplify them, we do not
> >exagerate them and so many seem to think that these feelings are not
> >feelings at all but states 'outside' of feelings. They are not.
> What I call
> >secondary thinking acts to take a distinction and exagerate it
> or suppress
> >it, the aim is to bring-out an aspect for closer examination or to
> >de-emphasise a boundary to bring out background. This secondary thinking
> >will lead to a loss in precision in that you move from a single context
> >IS/IS NOT to a multi-context COULD BE where we move into the use of
> >probabilities and fuzzy logic. This may qualitatively seem rich
> ground but
> >it is also more subjective and so approximations biased.
> >
> >You can see this movement from rigid IS/IS NOT to more
> approximate states in
> >the development of logic where the original universe of discourse (single
> >context) combined with the use of dichotomisation (A/~A and 1:1 format)
> >gives way to more context sensitive logic, thus propositional
> calculus leads
> >to predicate calculus and then into modal logics and fuzzy
> logic, the latter
> >where we use probabilities but this does not remove the assertion of an
> >absolute truth, since you have moved past that area, you have moved from
> >primary to secondary thinking.
> >
> >What you have in rationalism is a perceived state of emotional neutrality
> >where positive and negative 'cancel' each other out (using the
> wave metaphor
> >to describe feelings). This neutral state 'maps' to specific
> persona types
> >who favour this mode of thinking as well as the mode being available to
> >other types with biases to different modes. (In the MBTI, a personality
> >typology system, rationalists are called NT temperaments, combining
> >intuition and thinking, the thimnking is the A/~A and the
> intuition is the
> >drive to discover what is behind expression)
> >
> >The rationalist type of thinking stems from the combination of sensation
> >seeking (the expression, something local, and often fails to distinguish
> >text/context or else asserts a single context) and identity
> seeking (looking
> >behind the expression -- context sensitive, non-local). The psychological
> >tie is to sensation seeking that has had a bad experience or simply lacks
> >trust in themselves. This forces (a) the creation of a boundary
> and (b) the
> >objectification of processes (nominalisation where a verb becomes a noun)
> >such that we can map things and in doing so create a tool with
> which we can
> >solve problems (the NT type is into problem solving, solution
> seeking); our
> >explorations into sensation seeking is now done with by cautiously
> >pushing-out the boundary with the aid of a map which we update as we go.
> >(thus the map is truth captured on paper etc that we then make
> available to
> >others in our group/species).
> >
> >There is NO SEPARATION of feelings from logic etc. other than the one you
> >seem to make (as do a lot of others where local object distinctions are
> >seperated from the source of 'different' interpretations). It is
> revealing
> >that you split feelings from the 'logical, rational, reasonable'
> suggesting
> >that feelings are in the realm of the illogical, irrational, and
> >unreasonable and yet the neurology/psychology demonstrate that
> feelings are
> >foundations of the experience of 'logical, rational, reasonable'.
> >
> >IMHO you have cut yourself off from what makes you human. I
> think it could
> >be useful to trace the roots of such concepts as 'logic' or 'rational' or
> >'reasonable' since the process leads you to discover that these are words
> >linked to a particular perspective, one of many, and that perspective is
> >single context, object-oriented thinking that aims to clearly identify
> >something, to distinguish an IS from an IS NOT. It is in the
> realm of what I
> >call primary processing and it has a syntax bias and a strong emphasis on
> >precision and at times a degree to the exclusion of
> >relational issues (manifest in your rejection of feelings :-))
> >
> >The development of feedback processes (memory etc) allows us to
> 'go beyond'
> >the syntax into semantics where we move into multi-context, more
> qualitative
> >processing that works to exagerate (+ or -) the object and so
> move us into
> >personal and cultural subjectivities that include context
> sensitivity (which
> >is what abduction deals with in that it is NOT
> particular-to-particular but
> >more particular-to-general in that the context we link to the text is a
> >general regardless of it being a particular context. I think
> your confusing
> >levels in your comments about this, the RELATIONSHIP of text to
> context is
> >particular-to-general. The IDENTIFICATION of which context the
> text fits-in
> >with identifies a particular but that particular is characteristically a
> >general. All three methods, induction, abduction, deduction, map
> to a 1:many
> >relationship where the 1 is held constant and we vary the many.
> This process
> >is fundamental to our neurology where we play with the
> what(one)/where(many)
> >dichotomy).
> >
> >The area of semantics is the area of SECONDARY thinking (and includes the
> >play of the deduction/abduction loop). Secondary thinking
> assumes meaning is
> >present at all times since it assumes that the primary thinking
> process has
> >applied the 'correct/incorrect' dichotomy, the syntax process
> precedes the
> >semantic process. This means that random processes which have nothing
> >'behind' them, if allowed to 'slip-through' the screening process will be
> >given meaning since the assumption of the secondary process is
> that anything
> >that does get through must in some way be meaningful. The emphasise on
> >probability processes ensures that some 'rubbish' WILL get
> through since the
> >process itself is secondary and works with dichotomisations such as
> >meaningless/meaningful which is replaced with a qualitative assessment of
> >worthless/priceless -- strongly subjective terms.
> >
> >Genetic diversity alone will allow for a developing bias where semantic
> >processing is seem as primary and that will lead you into such
> concepts as
> >there is meaning 'out there' independent of 'us' and everything
> is connected
> >to everything else and there are no absolute truths since all is
> in flux etc
> >etc
> >
> >BTW I liked the absolute way you stated that there is no
> absolute truth etc
> >very Popper, but then Popper's thinking starts in secondary space since
> >extreme primary space is 'unscientific' due to it being too
> positive where
> >the concept of negation is not even considered. Science DEMANDS
> >dichotomisations to work with since it is rooted in a lack of
> faith and as
> >such needs to make comparisions, to get behind things and discover the
> >algorithms and formulas that lead to expressions that can be
> tested -- the
> >testing emphasis showing the underlying root of science, lack of trust in
> >ones experiences that was then abstracted into the discipline of Science.
> >
> >The moment you move into secondary thinking you move into
> probabilities and
> >that move will include your approach to such concepts as truth; truth
> >becomes 'fuzzy' but when viewed from a hierarchic position then there are
> >absolute truths within the given contexts of personal, cultural,
> universal.
> >The fuzzyness emerges when you try to cross the boundaries and so confuse
> >contexts which can lead to 'errors', this universal truths
> should span all
> >levels but personal truths remain personal.
> >
> >In this sense there ARE absolute truths (experienced as a feeling that is
> >100% 'true') you just have to make sure that the text-to-context
> link is the
> >'correct' one.
> >
> >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 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 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 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 13:49:17 BST