Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA21117 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:38:52 +0100 Message-Id: <200006262036.QAA06684@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:40:51 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: FW: Cons and Facades - more on truth Pt. II X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Neurological connections in the physical substrate brain are in
the
> > realm of being, not the realm of meaning. This basic distinction
> > cannot be erased or ignored.
>
> Meaning is directly linked to neurotransmitter/neuromodulator
processes.
> Manipulate neurotransmitter uptake systems and you go from
'god in the head
> syndrome' to severe depression (serotonin link) or Parkinson's
Disease to
> Schizophrenia (dopamine link) etc etc
>
Neurotransmitter manipulation undoubtably alters mood, but it
doesn't cause one to call a hippo a rhino. A hippo will still be a
hippo and a rhino will still be a rhino, whether the person identifying
them as such is elated, depressed, deranges, or feels particularly
blessed.
>
> Neural connectivity INCLUDES neurochemical processes and so
there IS a link
> to meaning. The neurons themselves are structure and the
neurochemistry is
> relational processes -- emotions linked and so meaning linked.
Neurons are
> warp, neurochemistry is weft and the relationships create
patterns --
> meaning.
>
It is quite impossible for meaning to be created solely in the mind,
as meaning is a function of the interrelation of the mind with the
world. That's where the patterns come from. A kitten who has
ping-pong ball halves covering its eyes during development can see
light (it shines through the plastic), but has only experienced a
featureless Ganz field, and not learned about lines and shapes,
horizontal, vertical and diagonal, etc. The eyes are fully
functioning, but the brain is not, lacking all the cerebral patterns
with which to correspond with the data streaming in, so this kitten,
once the critical period has passed and the hemispheres are
removed, is FUNCTIONALLY blind; it bumps into things left and
right, before and behind, above and below.
>
> <snip>
> > > 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)
> > >
> > This is patently false; if everything was determined, there would
be
> > no room for free will to influence choices, thus neither it nor an
> > impotent self-consciousness to direct such a free will could
have
> > evolved. Without self-consciousness to impose meaning upon
> > being, there could be no meaning.
>
> Free-Will = local
> Determinism = non-local
>
> Super-Determinism = Free will is determined.
>
This is a contradiction in terms. If free will exists, it cannot be
determined, and if determinism is the actually obtaining state of
affairs, then there can be no such thing as free will. When Sartre
said "we are condemned to be free", he was saying that since the
world was not determined, we had no choice but to make our own
choices. Superdeterminism means that at the time of the Big
Bang, the color and shape of every light switch, ashtray and lamp
in every room, as well as the exact spatiotemporal position and
progression of every fly, ant, mosquito, gnat, tick, flea and termite
which is living, has ever lived or will ever live, was absolutely
determined, that somwhere in that white hot rapidly expanding
chaos of plasma, if we could but read it, was the template, the
schematic, for all these things, and if the Big Bang was bung a
dodecadrillion times over, that everything would proceed the same
every time, because nothing, in principle, could ever change. I
regard such a view a patently absurd.
>
> Meaning is more SPECIES level not self level (other than
personal meanings
> which are meaningless if you cannot communicate them to
others).
>
The fact that person X murdered person Y and kept it to himself all
his life renders his knowledge of his crime, and the crime itself,
meaningless? There is no significant difference between him and
someone who somehow forgot they did such a thing, or someone
who in fact didn't do such a thing?
>
> Consciousness is the recognition of other selves in the form of
other MINDS
> that share meaning in the form of communications that cause our
'pools' of
> emotion to resonate; this is all feedback processing.
>
People don't always exchange information to emotionally resonate,
or feel good; some times they do it to learn how to do something.
>
> As for information processing and the determination of meaning,
since all
> data is based on invariant object and relationship distinctions so
all
> possible meanings are pre-defined, they exist even though you
may never
> experience them.
>
This view seems like soms strange syncretism of Plato's Eternal
Forms and the completer deterministically-driven lack of any
ascknowledgement of human differences. Each cognitive
environment, due to different genetics, fetal environment, and
spatiotemporal experience, is unique, and each meaning absorbed
into multiple minds must assume a different pattern-relation to the
differing environment with which it finds itself in relation. We are
not stamped out of a single cookie cutter mold like Tupperware
tubs. And do you really thing that Van Gogh's "STARRY NIGHT"
was floating out there in some Platonic realm before Vincent
instantiated it? Meanings, once again, cannot exist bereft of a
mean-er, i. e. us, who are their source. They are what WE impose
upon a world that, except for our existence, would lack them
altogether, nor would it miss them, or us.
>
> Free will is the association of some sound etc to a particular
pattern but
> the pattern is invariant, the object-ness or relationship-ness is
fixed as
> part of the what/where dichotomy our neurology uses in
processing data.
>
We all have similar yet differing neurologies. You have to get this
mass-production interchangeable-brain idea out if your head, for it
does not correspond with reality. We are similar; this entails that
we are neither identical nor nonrelationally different. There are
many languages, so many different sounds get linked to any
particular perceived pattern, and the connection between them is
absorbed into different minds differently, even when they speak the
same language, depending upon what was already there when the
pattern arrived.
>
> The linking of a pointer to a pattern is 'random', free-will, but the
> structure of the pattern is determined in that it is one of the set
we have
> linked to our method of analysis. The feeling of 'wholeness' is
across the
> species, the difference is WHAT is determined to be 'a whole'.
>
Actually, we do NOT feel whole (on the whole), and continue to
learn and explore and investigate and inquire for the balance of our
days. Self-conscious awareness can never be simultaneously
correct and complete, because it breaches the Godelian threshhold
of recursive self-reference. We are always trying to answer
questions, and the answers inevitably lead to further questions, and
this is a GOOD thing.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > This is a failed and futile attempt to psychologize physics. Bell
> > won a Nobel for his work precisely because it stands up to
rigorous
> > analysis, and has little or nothing to do with the mindset of the
> > person considering it.
>
> you are missing the point, you are trying to keep physics
thinking and psych
> thinking at the same levels, they are not. BEHIND the
mathematics, the
> structure of experiments etc is our METHOD of analysis and this
method has
> properties that can be confused with what you are investigating.
Thus
> creating experiments (mind based on 'real') based on
dichotomisations will
> give you results that manifest properties of the method and so
the results
> do not necessarily reflect 'out there' but more our attempts to
interpret
> 'out there'. Physics is metaphor just as mathematic is etc etc
>
Actually, these are not in conflict. Whatever the thing-in-itself is, it
must noncontradictorally contain the thing-for-us as part or aspect.
Thus the object IS as we see it, we just do not see it completely.
Photons may seem like waves or particles depending upon our
testing methodology, but this simply means tha they possess both
these aspects, and that they are actually beneath or beyond these
human-imposed definitions, even though they must contain them.
>
> That said, from an evolutionary development viewpoint, if we have
adapted to
> our environment by internalising its characteristics then one of
these is
> reflected in the methods we use, namely recursive application of
1:many type
> dichotomies where the 1 is fixed and the many variable.
>
> The resonance we get when we compare our theories to 'out
there' reflects
> this in that our theories often seem to 'fit' but the 'fit' is
determined by
> the method, meaning is always within the context set by the
method and so we
> can map out all possible meanings without even looking 'out
there'.
>
This seams like a blend of idealism and solipsism to me. Are you
maintaining that the "out there", as you put it, is unnecessary?
Concepts are of necessity grounded in percepts, and without them,
you would be able to conceive of nothing whatsoever. Just imagine
being grown in a sensory deprivation tank from infancy; no light,
color, sound, shape, touch, language, nothing whatsoever received
in your patternless neurons, which have been hardwired to permit
learning in general, but possess no intrinsic meaning in particular.
What could you say, or do, or know? Answer: nothing whatsoever.
>
> When Bell did his work it was based on set theory, set theory
being a
> logico-mathematical tool that uses dichotomisations and one of
the
> properties of applying a dichotomy recursively and including a
fuzzy factor
> (indeterminacy) will lead to patterns that suggest wave
interference at work
> as well as entanglement of the elements of the dichotomy. These
are
> properties of the METHOD and so you need to be wary;
wavyness etc is not
> restricted to QM, ANY application of dichotomisations at ANY
level will give
> you the same type of results.
>
> Most physicists etc have little or no understanding of how we
process,
> manipulate data, they work within their box. This has been fine in
the past
> but now things are changing in that we are starting to understand
the
> structure of our methods and we need to include that data when
making our
> maps.
>
It is always wise to employ various and mutually exclusive
methodologies in experiments so that such methodological
artifacts may be identified and expunged from the results.
>
> best,
>
> Chris.
>
Ditto, Joe
>
>
===============================================================
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 26 2000 - 21:39:36 BST