Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA16853 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:47:09 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:01:22 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMENKCGAA.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) In-Reply-To: <200006210448.AAA20123@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal 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: Wednesday, 21 June 2000 2:53
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>
>
> From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
> Date sent: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:21:25 +1000
> Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
<snip>
> > I am reviewing the use of this in the semiotics of music
> (Tarasti gets into
> > this in (1994)"A Theory of Musical Semiotics" IUP) Using the template
> > material we can expand this into a compass format (eight points
> compared to
> > four) as well as TWO approaches, oppositional (as in the
> original semiotic
> > square) and cooperational. I run a 'small' list dealing with semiosis
> > (emergence of meaning) where some of this is/will be expanded
> upon. Will let
> > you know how things go!
> >
> Yeah, two can be doubled into four can be doubled into eight can
> be doubled into...
you again miss the point re 1:many processing such that the above mapping
has under it a 1:many bias that leads you into log scaling etc
> >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > I refer you to Introducing Semiotics: It's History and Doctrine by
> > > John Deely for the standard philosophical and semiotic definition of
> > > abduction, as well as the distinctions between semantics (the
> > > relations of signs to their signified referents), syntactics (the
> > > relations between signs in a sign system) and pragmatics (the
> > > relations of signs to their signifier) within semiotics.
> > > >
> >
> > Been there, done that. I relate induction/deduction/abduction
> directly to
> > what has been found in the neurosciences/psychology and so what REALLY
> > happens. At my eisa website I touch on Peirce's method of
> analysis and how
> > it resonates with 'in here' methodology other than the error of not
> > differentiating relational processes into static and dynamic
> (most 'three'
> > oriented methods or so due to the fact that they have not recognised the
> > complexity/chaos processes going on and so the presence of
> bifurcations.)
> >
> Of course Peirce is static and synchronic - all structural schemas
> are; this is why memetics, as a dynamic and diachronic functional
> schema, provides the perfect complement to semiotics.
If you review my websites you will find that there is a pattern that is
based on dynamics but it recognises that you need the structure first.
Peirce recognised that to get into the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry,
astronomy, and music you had to first work your way through three 'lesser'
disciplines, grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
These lesser disciplines are for Peirce the three threads of the Science of
Semiotic where grammar = firstness, logic = secondness and rhetoric =
thirdness.
The last distinction does take us into preliminary dynamics that get
expanded as you work further up the hierarchy (at least the three tiers ).
From the template area the structural emphasis is very archetypal in form,
in the I Ching it is called the Fu Hsi sequence with a rigid structure using
binary trees. Upon these foundations are layered the 'King Wen' sequence
were the emphasis is on dynamics and a definite start-end distinction.
I have linked Greimas's semiotic square to the Fu Hsi sequence emphasising
the structural basis and am now expanding this into dynamics and the King
Wen sequence (there are 8 trigrams that form a compass pattern and we get
two compasses, the relational overlayed on the structural.)
> >
> > Most of the texts I have read on semiotics (old as in Peirce
> and new as in
> > Eco etc) dont touch on the neurology/psychology too well since
> it is only in
> > the last 10 years of so that we have been able to get a good
> idea as to what
> > is happening and so using this data we can refine our models and that
> > includes semiotics.
> >
> Read Gerald M. Edelman for a good idea of what is
> neurobiologically going on; he won a Nobel for his work (NEURAL
> DARWINISM (1988), THE REMEMBERED PRESENT (1990), and
> TOPOBIOLOGY (1993), summed up in his book BRIGHT AIR,
> BRILLIANT FIRE (1993)), and has a great new book out (A
> UNIVERSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS (2000)). Antonio Damasio is
> good, too, as are Daniel C. Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Stephen Pinker,
> and many others, none of which give any credence to your
> seeming theory of hardwired meaning.
> >
They are probably not even aware of my theory. :-)
I have read a lot of these. They deal with expression not what is behind it.
Pinker's recent book on words and rules was, by the title, getting to the
point but it didnt in content (words = objects/text,
rules=relationships/context) His selective references to neurological
functions was laughable but then he is more of a specialist than a
generalist so this is understandable.
Take the time to go through the literature on hemisphere functions etc (see
some of the refs at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html ) and a
pattern starts to emerge emphasising the object(what)/relationships(where)
dichotomy and its recursion as fundamental in processing data.
Since that reflects a METHOD, apply the dichotomy recursively and you get
the patterns I talk about and you can relate these patterns to seemingly
different disciplines such as the I Ching and Mathematics.
None of the above authors have touched on these areas in depth probably
since being specialists and academics they stay inside their box. I have no
fear since I have nothing to lose, I am at the bottom of the heap (or more
so outside the heap :-)) and it is that position that allows me to get into
issues that many would rather leave alone such as the foundations of
esoteric disciplines etc why it is that people find value in these despite
what Science has to say about them.
My work shows you categorisation and the emergence of meaning at work within
the constraints set-up by neuroscience and that is 'new' and I have enough
research data to put together the model I have.
I have not seen that in memetics as yet but perhaps as I go through the
relational patterns things will start to emerge :-)
<snip>
> > > Gravitationally this may be trivially true, but causality is not
> > > universal (random appearances of electron-positron pairs, Brownian
> > > motion, radioactive decay), nor is spatiotemporal contiguity.
> > > >
> >
> > THis is an interesting point when you get to quantum mechanics where the
> > entanglement concept would allow for 'random' processes to in
> fact be the
> > manifestation of the non-local part of a pair being influenced
> by something.
> > Since we cannot see this (the other part being perhaps on the
> other side of
> > the universe) all we see is an apparent 'random' event - no detectable
> > cause.
> >
> So you embrace nonlocality. Do you embrace superdeterminism,
> the many-worlds theory, or superluminal connections (the only
> alternatives Bell's Theorem leaves open once nonlocality is
> embraced)?
> >
I dont 'embrace' anything; I just deal with ideas and their structure, HOW
we can come up with such concepts and we can due to the structure of the
neurology.
At my website I demonstrate how wave/particle duality concepts can emerge
from the use of recursive dichotomisation which is the method used in ALL of
the experiments to demonstrate this concept, IOW the METHOD of analysis
creates the patterns and so 'waves' and 'particles' are expressions of the
method, recursive dichotomisations, and as such we will be able to see/use
these concepts at ALL SCALES not just QM and their source is 'in here'.
The concepts of free will/determinism can be traced to left brained naming
processes tied with right brained pattern mappings (link of a 'random noise'
to a determining pattern) and superdeterminism follows when you change
scales (it is tied to the secondary processing concepts in that there is the
assumption that all is meaningful and so there is no free will at all)
The local/non-local dichotomy, from a neurological perspective maps to the
particular/general structure of the neocortex. thus non-local will take-on
characteristics linked to relational processing in the brain and this
includes the everything-is-connected-to-everything-else and so the
entanglement issues etc etc and the interpretive differences since we have
moved from single context local thinking to multi-context non-local
thinking.
Local thinking is precision oriented and so emphasis is on 'the one'.
Non-local thinking is more approximations oriented and so emphasis is on
'the many' but the non-local is tied to contextual issues and when you get
into this sort of thinking your emphasise shifts from the object, the one,
to the relationships in the context that affect the object and so determine
effects.
From mathematics we can see this process going on where the almost
context-insensitive whole numbers are developed to the level of Hamiltonians
where the emphasis is on the influences of surrounding context on the
object.
The Many-Worlds concept comes right out non-local thinking where the
relationships bias favours non-closure which is the intent behind the theory
as a way of getting around the wave collapse issue.
From a Peircean point of view non-locality gets into thirdness and so
probabilites, generals etc
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 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:47:52 BST