Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA23461 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:54:14 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:08:59 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEDBCHAA.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: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000707092215@mac463.wehi.edu.au> 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 John Wilkins
> Sent: Friday, 7 July 2000 9:22
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
>
<snip>
> >This is the viewpoint from the ~A where we can identify something by
> >what it
> >isnt; we use context to shine light on the text. Negation is just
> >another
> >'harmonic' as far as the world of ~A is concerned. Science uses this a
> >lot,
> >especially in QM etc .. problem is that it is a bit like Plato's cave
> >and so
> >we have to wrestle with shadows :-)
>
> I'll get back to the other posts in a bit, when I get some spare time,
> but a passing comment:
>
> What you are referring to here is what Aristotle called a "privative
> definition": An invertebrate is an animal without a backbone, for
> example. The problem with privative predicates is that there is an
> indefinite number of things something is *not*. If one says, for
> example, that mammals evolved from non-mammals, do we mean they evolved
> from rocks? Rocks are, after all, non-mammals. Meaning cannot, without a
> severe narrowing of the semantic possibility space, be privative.
>
This is the point I raised re SECONDARY thinking; when you move into
harmonics analysis anything is possible and it is feedback that leads you
on, thus 'not mammals' lead to 'what?' and we move to the next
*possibility*,and I STRESS possibility since harmonics analysis is driven by
probabilities (thus there IS a link to rocks in the form of CLAY and there
IS work that suggests a link of evolving from clay!)
One of the problems is that this method of analysis leads to properties of
the method being confused with properties of what is under analysis.
Aristotle was correct in the terms in that this area is VERY subjective but
it so happens to be the area used by quantum mechanics!
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 16:54:58 BST