Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA11932 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:19:32 +0100 Message-Id: <200007280217.WAA18284@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:21:34 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEKOCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007280117.VAA03312@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Simple neural models
Date sent: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:05:03 +1000
Send 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: Friday, 28 July 2000 11:22
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> >
> >
> > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> > Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> > Date sent: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:00:39 +1000
> > Send 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: Friday, 28 July 2000 6:34
> > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, your map does not adhere to the territory; I have provided
> > > > numerous irrefutable counterexamples to your claim that the two
> > > > are contiguous.
> > > >
> > >
> > > you have provided no such thing; I have easily demonstrated that your
> > > so-called counter examples are refutable.
> > >
> > Okay, refute the irretrieveably triadic phenomenological structure of
> > perception (focus/field/fringe), the irreduceably triadic structure of
> > semiotic signification (sign/signifier/signified), the
> > irrefuteably triadic
> > hermeneutic structure of communication (code/carrier/message),
> > and the three distinct indices of received perceptual content
> > (frequency, amplitude and waveform).
>
> I have already done that in past posts but you, being fanatical, failed to
> 'see' that. ANY trichotomy is revealable as a lack in precision, they in
> fact are trying to reflect FOUR states that emerge from TWO, or TWO from
> ONE. Whenever you try to use a trichotomy it implies a lack in resolution at
> the relationships level, a failure to distinguish STATIC elements from
> DYNAMIC elements.
>
Bullus shittus. You cannot reduce the focus to the field or fringe,
the fringe to the focus or field, or the field to the focus or fringe.
You cannot reduce the sign to the signified or signifier, the signifier
to the sign or signified, or the signified to the sign or signifier. You
cannot reduce the code to the carrier or the message, the carrier to
the message or code, or the message to the code or carrier. You
cannot reduce frequency to amplitude or waveform, amplitude to
frequency or waveform, or waveform to amplitude or frequency, and
in fact you have never done so, and lie when you maintain that you
have, because it simply cannot be done.
>
> The process of derivation is ONE (object: whole) TWO (objects: whole/parts)
> THREE (whole/parts/relationships BUT the problems will emerge if you do not
> differentiate STATIC/DYNAMIC from the general term relationships.)
>
You have no knowledge whatsoever of mereology, the philosophy of
wholes and parts, nor do you understand systems theory, which
asserts that components in interrelation cannot be assigned an
integral value as either singular or multiple.
>
> Note that in the process of derivation we go ONE-TWO-THREE but in teaching
> we actually entangle relationships with objects,
> whole-statics-parts-dynamics. Add negation and you get eight fundamental
> states used for categorisation. Something I am sure you have no idea about
> since you are so 'stuck' in the particulars; so specialised. Behind your
> specialisation are generalisations that are species-specific and
> understanding these SAMENESS levels gives you better insights to all of the
> DIFFERENCES.
>
You're stuck like mud in your quasimysticoreligious
pseudosystem, in which you believe fervently, fanatically and as
zealously as any fundamentalist Shiite; you do not own your faith;
you are owned BY it, and it cognitvely blinds you to contradictions
as it empirically blinds you to counterexamples. You are a
shining, sterling example of a memetic zombie.
>
> I think your 'problem' is in single context thinking; thus you see
> code-carrier-message in the form of a equilateral triangle with each point
> being of equal value. Not right. There is a sequence, a hierarchic format
> contained in this manifest in the process of derivation. Your neurology does
> not introduce triadic formats etc at the level of the first distinction. It
> is like a protolanguage pattern which is distinctly hierarchic where the
> Sentence is made up of Noun Phrase and Verb Phrase, thus the sentence is
> 'higher' than the NP and VP.
>
Code is the language, carrier is the light or sound waves, and
message is the signified content. None of them is reduceable to
any of the others. Period.
>
> This reflects our use of (a) a universe of discourse and (b) A/~A within
> that universe. The trichotomies 'emerge' from ~A since that is a MANY not a
> ONE but in doing so you have to be wary of the hierarchy present or else you
> will get false data. The problem comes from learning, from feedback, in that
> once you establish a triadic format as primary so you will keep seeing this;
> you dont go through 1-2-3 every time, once you get to 2 or 3 within a
> particular context you will 'start' at whichever level in future
> experiences. If you get the 1-2-3 'wrong' you will still try to impose it;
> as you seem to be doing.
>
You are the one who continues to make the failed and futile
attempt to shoehorn the inconveniently unfittable empirical
complexities of perception, communication and signification into
your few shallow pigeonholes.
>
> That is ok in that as in all complexity/chaos systems you will not notice
> the emergence of 'errors' until you are down the line abit and as such will
> not go back to initial conditions but try and defend your position from the
> point of difference; from where the errors emerge.
>
You are truly a megalomaniac if you cannot even grasp the
possibility that you are wrong when it has been proven
conclusively, with empirical examples which you cannot even see
that you have failed miserably to address.
>
> Eventually you will get the hang of it but until then we must tolerate your
> errors! :-)
>
"It', as you call your particular delusion-grid, is already hung out to
dry.
>
> 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 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 28 2000 - 03:20:25 BST