Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA15495 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:31:54 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Simple neural models Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 02:47:38 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOELJCHAA.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: <200007282105.RAA18147@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal 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: Saturday, 29 July 2000 7:10
> 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: 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,
The brain does this and its format allows us to maximise our
interpretations.
> which do NOT adhere to the territory;
you mean YOUR version.
> most other people are more sophisticated than to restrict
> themselves to that single simple schema.
It isnt simple, it develops very quickly into a complexity biased system.
> >
> > (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,
This is the way the brain works. simple.
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.
recursive dichotomisations lead to the emergence of complex patterns.
> >
> > 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.
The distinction of fundamental vs harmonics as manifesting brain function is
well documented. I have supplied the references in past emails as well as my
websites (in most, left = fundamental, right = harmonics. These SAME
patterns occur at different scales e.g. temporal lobe vs parietal lobe etc)
> >
> > 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.
This shows your inability to see other peoples perspective if they differ
one iota from yours. The above IS recursion, the symbolism reflects the
application of the original dichotomy to itself where to each element we
apply the A/~A and as a result get patterns that CAN be symbolised as I have
done.
I understand well recursion. Here we have an example of you making
misinterpretations and then exagerating the supposed 'error' as an attempt
to promote yourself. Your comments re complexity/chaos have already been
covered at my website and my previous emails; IMHO you forgetfulness on this
is a bit suspect.
<snip>
> > 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.
The full pattern is BLEND (whole) BOND (statics) BOUND (parts) BIND
(dynamics).
The elements of the trichotomy, the BOND, BOUND, BIND come from recursive
dichotomisations where (a) BOND comes out of the 'space' inbetween whole and
parts and reflects the grouping of elements of the harmonic series (aka a
parts list) to show off invarient relationships in the whole.
Thus BLEND--BOUND dichotomy leads to the emergence of BOND as well as BIND.
The BIND element relates to BOUNDED elements (and so no BOND).
You see these patterns in mathematics which is derived from the same source:
BLEND -- whole numbers.
BOUND -- rational numbers (parts).
BOND -- irrational numbers (PI, e) these are MARKERS for emphasing invarient
relationships.
BIND -- imaginary numbers, used as MARKERS of dynamic relationships
(transitions, transformations).
All waves are described using these types of representations. There is no
trichotomies here other than that created if you 'dump' the fundamental.
Frequency, for example, manifests dynamic relationships where the number of
wavelengths pass a point per second.
Later on in your post you make the statement:
> 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.
> >
Here you obviously have taken NOT A as an opposite of A. Not so. As A is a
WHOLE concept so ~A is not whole, it symbolises all of the parts,
relationships possible that are NOT A. The more object minded tend to reduce
the 'many' side of a dichotomy to 1, which you seem to have done. an error.
You brain deals with 1:many dichotomisations; use the frequency emphasis and
the many, the ~A manifests HARMONICS of the A, the fundamental.
I have given refs for this in the past; go back and read them. Perhaps then
we can continue discussion rather than I and others having to go through
your emotive raves.
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 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 17:32:50 BST