Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14072 (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 22:07:58 +0100 Message-Id: <200007282105.RAA18147@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:09:59 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEELDCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007280217.WAA18284@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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:17:03 +1000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Joe's trichotomies:
>
> focus/field/fringe
> sign/signifier/signified
> code/carrier/message
> frequency/amplitude/waveform
>
> He emphasises these in:
>
> > 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.
>
> This paragraph is of interest in that it may contain a fundamental
> confusion, however this will become clearer after a summary of some
> basics...
>
>
> My emphasis (to summarise) is:
>
> (1) we make maps by using recursive dichotomisations.
>
YOU make maps that way, which do NOT adhere to the territory;
most other people are more sophisticated than to restrict
themselves to that single simple schema.
>
> (2) these dichotomisations have a format, namely that of 1:many where the 1
> is fixed and the many variable.
>
This is typical oversimplistic reductionistic ChrisSpeak, of the form
that 'the number three does not really exist; it is just a combination
of one and two, and has no referent in my dualistic universe - why,
we can count everything dualistically, and create all the major
theorems of mathematics with just one and two - even the Four-
CFolor Theorem, Fermat's Theorem, Goldbach's Conjecture, and
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - remember that in the Ark, two
by two was quite enough
>"
> (3) we can symbolise dichotomisation in the form of A/~A.
>
Yeah, not-many = one and not-one = many, but what about neither
one nor many (not integral)? That's the Pi in your eye (not to
mention e). Not only are there threes, fives and sevens, but they
have square and cube roots, too. The world ain't irreduceably
digital; your experience has been skewed through your computer
work into the delusion that everything is reduceable to a J-K flip flop.
>
> In my earlier post I emphasised that trichotomies come out of the ~A, there
> are no trichotomies in A in that you cannot take the trichotomy as a
> fundamental, nor the dichotomy, these are always dealing with HARMONICS. The
> A is the fundamental, the ~A all else.
>
You keep on saying this, but cannot prove it, because the false is
unproveable. This is an example of the kind of nonthinking that
convinces me that I have NOT insulted you; it may not be polite to
call someone what they are, but the truth, by definition, can never
be an insult.
>
> Joe emphasises the irreducability of the trichotomies and I emphasise that
> these CAN be reduced in that being harmonics they are reducable to the
> fundamental. I have always emphasised the distinctions of whole, parts,
> static relationships, dynamic relationships. These distinctions come from
> simple recursive dichotomisation and we can see the source of Joe's
> trichotomies when we apply the recursion:
>
And he gives no fundamental, just word salad not concretely
dealing with ANY of my examples. He keeps SAYING it can be
done (his purported alchemical transmogrification of threes into
twos), but does not DO it, because it CANNOT be done, and he
believes that if he continues to repeat his Big Lie, that it will be
accepted by the gullible as true.
> basic dichotomy : A,~A
>
> after first recursion: AA, A~A, ~AA, ~A~A
>
> Note that we still have ONE A but the process has forced the emergence of a
> ~A that has been differentiated into THREE and this is the source of the
> trichotomy.
>
You do NOT have one A there: you have AA, A~A, ~AA, ~A~A;
you also do not have recursion; you have pairing of A and ~A with
other A and ~A; as brainless as two and two is twenty-two. If you
believe that such pairing is indeed recursion, then you do not
understand the meaning of the term, which I will now helpfully
provide for your enlightenment and edification on the matter.
Main Entry: re·cur·sion
Pronunciation: ri-'k&r-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin recursion-, recursio, from
recurrere
Date: 1616
1 : RETURN
2 : the determination of a succession of elements
(as numbers or
functions) by operation on one or more preceding
elements according
to a rule or formula involving a finite number of steps
3 : a computer programming technique involving the
use of a
procedure, subroutine, function, or algorithm that
calls itself in a step
having a termination condition so that successive
repetitions are
processed up to the critical step until the condition
is met at which time
the rest of each repetition is processed from the last
one called to the
first -- compare ITERATION
>
Recursion involves return; that is, self-reflection and self-reference,
the stuff of complexity and the threshhold of Godelian
incompleteness. Simply sticking one A after another is NOT
recursion. If you really want to know more about the subject, I
suggest you read RECURSIVENESS by Eilenberg and Elgot, but
most likely you don't wish to know such things; you are an
absolutely self-convinced guru wannabe in search of gullible
acolytes. Belief, for you, is more than not wanting to know; it is
wanting not to know, for to admit that you don't know about such
things would be to transgress your carefully cultivated self-concept
of someone with everything to teach and nothing to learn, a
condition of believed omniscience commonly associated with
megalomanic disorders.
>
> ALL of Joe's trichotomies contain SECONDARY terms, HARMONICS of a
> fundamental. Joe's emphasis is so aspects-oriented in his work that it leads
> to the 'dumping' of the fundamental where these trichotomies are seen as if
> fundamental, they are not. You cannot have the concepts of frequency,
> amplitude, waveform WITHOUT a fundamental concept of a wave but you CAN have
> the concept of a wave without knowledge of the particular aspects mentioned
> (and we can add more aspects...)
>
Fundamental concept of a wave - 1. Divides into frequency,
amplitude and waveform - 3. There are NO TWOS THERE. This is
a fundamental trisection, not bisection.
>
> Thus the FULL set of terms is always a TWO (A/~A) or a FOUR
> (AA,A~A,~AA,~A~A) or an EIGHT etc etc. If you exagerate the ~A elements by
> dropping the fundamental then you get THREE, SEVEN, FIFTEEN etc etc and this
> is an error in that this can take you into ga-ga land if you take the THREE
> as fundamental. Thus the trichotomies, any X-otomies, are reducable to a
> dichotomy (A/~A) which can be reduced to the 'one' but that serves no
> purpose since to analyse we need some degree of difference.
>
You are a permanent resident of ga-ga land, if you actually grant
any credence to this unmitigated dreck. to what does your term
"fundamental' refer (besides your fundamentalist mindset)? To the
wave? Then ~A would have to be non-wave? Puh-LEEEZE!
Frequency, amplitude and waveform are not negations of waves,
they are constitutive of them - they comprise them.
>
> >From a development perspective, Freud came up with the trichotomy of
> ID,EGO,SUPEREGO and Charles Pierce came up with the trichotomy of firstness,
> secondness, thirdness. BOTH failed to make the distinctions in
> thirdness/SUPEREGO that the relational emphasis is too general, they failed
> to emphasise the distinctions between STATIC relationships and DYNAMIC
> relationships, thus the development pattern of ID, ID vs EGO, ID+EGO vs
> SUPEREGO (IOW the ID+EGO of OTHERS)shows bifurcations at work. (with this in
> mind, the elements of Joe's trichotomies can be mapped to parts, statics,
> and dynamics; there is no fundamental stated and that is required in any
> sort of analysis of meaning generation etc.)
>
I'm not going to defend Freud; I consider his model reductionistic,
simplistic, and mechanistic - yours is, however, even more so.
Existence, awareness of existence, and assigning signification to
(awareness of) that awareness, however, are successive levels of
reference or recursion; the second is about, or refers to, the forst,
and the thirs is about, or refers to, the second.
>
> I have consistantly emphasised the distinctions of BLEND (whole), BOND
> (Static relationships), BOUND (parts), and BIND (dynamic relationships) and
> have above demonstrated these patterns in Joe's trichotomies which IMHO lack
> precision by leaving out the fundamental.
>
What fundamental? There IS NO WAY that you can reduce the
whole to the status of any of its parts. Waves are not on the same
level as frequencies, amplitudes or waveforms; the latter are parts,
the former is the whole of which the latter are parts. Chris would
try to convince you that a dog leg is coextensive with the dog. This
dog either growls, gripes, grovels or groks, ayy?
>
> Furthermore, if you change levels of analysis, to make each element of the
> trichotomy the fundamental then the SAME patterns will come out, the
> distinction of a fundamental and its harmonics and the recursion of this
> distinction making creates descriptive states that work along a binary tree
> pattern, no trichotomies other than those you create out of harmonics.
>
NONE of the elements of the trichotomies I have presented is
fundamental to the exclusion of the other two; they are co-
primorial, which is why they are irreduceable to each other. You
cannot reduce the sign to either the signified or the signifier, you
cannot reduce the signified to either the signifier or the sign, you
cannot reduce the signifier to either the sign or the signified, and
you cannot equate the whole system of signification with any one
of these three constituent parts (Charles Morris, FOUNDATIONS
OF THE THEORY OF SIGNS). This is also true of the
focus/field/fringe struction of perception (Aron Gurwitsch, THE
FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS), the code/carrier/message
structure of communication (Shannon and Weaver, THE
MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF COMMUNICATION), and the
frequency/amplitude/waveform aspects of wave propagation.
>
> These
> creations are the 'same' as we find in music, 3rds, 5ths, 7ths etc etc and
> you cannot describe these without mentioning the KEY. Otherwise the world of
> harmonics lacks grounding and you can create anything you like.
>
Our particular piano keyboard is twelve tone, and japanese music
is quintitonal (that's five, chris). In fact, people CAN create
anything they like - even absurdities such as your nontheory. That
doesn't mean that they'll pass the empirical acid test; yours
doesn't, and was most probably conceived on acid. Come down
and reconnect with the world.
>
> For whatever his reasons, Joe seems to find problems with the BBBB concepts,
> I think the above may show the 'error' that is causing his problems, namely
> the failure to 'see' hierarchic systems and the brain's use of PRIMARY and
> SECONDARY distinctions; IMHO Joe is 'stuck' in the SECONDARY and tries to
> interpret it as PRIMARY -- a mistake.
>
The only error I have so far made is the error of believing that you
might not be adamantinely impervious to logical and rational
reasoning utilizing empirical examples.
>
> 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 - 22:08:53 BST