Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA15890 (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 21:36:46 +0100 Message-Id: <200007292034.QAA25540@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:38:51 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOELJCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007282105.RAA18147@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: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 02:47:38 +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: 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.
>
This is myour fundamental assumption, belief, faith and error.
>
> > which do NOT adhere to the territory;
>
> you mean YOUR version.
>
But if the brain only does it YOURway, I can't HAVE a different
version, or even CONCEIVE of one. Since I can (and have), you
are WRONG!
>
> > 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.
>
No it doesn't; it stays rooted in the 2*n format, which excludes the
lions share of real possible alternatives, starting with co-primordial
triads. This is what dooms it; it's basic fundamental conception is
an archetypical example of the flaws of simplisticism and
overreductionism.
>
> > >
> > > (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.
>
Your brain may be that simple; not mine, and not the brains of
most of the homo sapiens family.
>
> 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.
>
You cannnot reduce a co-primordial trichotomy to a dichotomy,
and you cannot integralize unintegrable complex functions, such
as Pi, e and the square and cube roots of primes. There are may
more existent patterns in the world, and in our minds, than your
tinker toy pseudomodel can represent.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
Just like your bill of ownership on the Brooklyn Bridge you're trying
to sell.
>
> 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)
>
Actually, the entire brain is capable of many different frequencies
which are mappable onto different brain states; alpha in meditation,
beta in everyday consciousness, gamma in REM sleep, theta in
non-REM (climax) sleep, etc. They are NOT harmonics of each
other, instead succeeding each other sequentially without
frequency doubling. The left/right brain differentiation is real
enough, but is a matter of degree rather than essence, and is less
fundamental (and less stark) than the back/front (sagittal/cortical)
division of perception vs. conception, mediated by action across
the dividing Sylvan Fissure, or the trichotomous inner, medial/outer
MacLean division into reptilian, mammalian and primate brain.
BTW, the temporal and parietal lobes subserve different modular
functions; the temporal is for audition, and the parietal for vision.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
Wrongo, boyo; when you add another term, you're just doing the
same kind of pairing easily observable in genetics with dominant
and recessive genes, and that is NOT recursive.
>
> 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.
>
Maybe if you continue to suspect, eventually you will get a clue.
Your obvious misunderstanding of recursion outside (perhaps) the
Little Lisper is unmistakeably reflected in your continuous
misrepresentation of it. You certainly were quick about snipping
the references and dictionary definition I provided - gotta hide that
contradicting evidence!
>
> <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).
>
Growl, Gripe, Grovel and Grok! The whole is on a different level
than the part and cannot mereologically be conflated with it - just
another one of your gross and egregious errors. Logorrheic
attempts at shoehorning reality into your pathetically inadequate
pseudomodel will not work here, except in your own selectively
blind brain. I challenge you to label each member of the
trichotomous relations I have given you, SPECIFICALLY, as to
which bizarre B you prefer to stick to it, and why, for focus-field-
fringe, sign-signifier-signified, code-carrier-message, and frequency-
amplitude-waveform, and to explain why you continue to
illegitimately attempt to force each of those parts onto the same
logical level as the whole they comprise, except for your manic
compulsion to make 2's and 4's out of everything like some
deranged numerologist.
>
> 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.
>
There are components in systems which are interrelated, with
threshholds (to preclude unity) and exchange (to avoid bifurcation),
but we cannot speak of these systems in twerms of unity and
multiplicity (integral terms); only fractal ones. If we referred to
system as singular, we would be linguistically dissolving all the
differentiations between components into an amorphous
mishmash, and if we referred to system as multiple, we would be
erecting unbreachable polyfurcations between the components;
either misrepresents systemic structure to the point where they
could not function, for if systems were as so misrepresented,
dynamic interrelation could not occur. Relation has its limits,
outside of which we must speak of nonrelation. One such
nonrelation is identity. Things are not related to themselves; they
ARE themselves. The correlative opposite of identity is absolute
disparity, which is an ideal limit rather than a real possibility, for all
experienced things are at the very least related as perceived or
conceived objects. In the same manner, simultaneity is a real limit
of succession, while its correlative opposite, separation by infinity,
is an ideal construct (Alfred Schutz, REFLECTIONS OF THE
PROBLEM OF RELEVANCE, p. 182). We can no more commit
such errors spatially than we can do so temporally; even less can
we commit them logically. But logical strictures do not seem to
bind you.
>
> 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).
>
You cannot reach either Pi or E by successive divisions by 2. It
simply cannot mathematically happen. The same with roots of
primes.
>
> All waves are described using these types of representations. There is no
> trichotomies here other than that created if you 'dump' the fundamental.
>
The "fundamental", as you seem to call the whole system, is on a
different mereological level from the parts comprising it. It is a
logical misstep of the first and foremost degree to illegitimately
conflate these levels; this is to commit what A. N. Whitehead calls
a 'category error.'
> Frequency, for example, manifests dynamic relationships where the number of
> wavelengths pass a point per second.
>
This is known as Hertz (Hz), or cycles per second. You cannot
reduce it to waveform or to amplitude, and cannot force any of the
three onto the same mereological level as the whole of which they
are aspects/parts, and which they collectively constitute/comprise.
>
> 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.
>
There are can be many not-A's, none of which have to be an anti-A,
but you cannot mereologically do what you are attempting to do;
place the parts on the same logical level as the wholes. It is quite
simply incorrect, and will remain so, regardless of the self-
convincedness residing withon your fevered brain.
>
> 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.
>
My objections have everything to do with your web refs, which I
read and rejected for good and irrefutable reasons, both empirical
and logical, as would any sane and knowledgeable person.
>
> 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 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 21:37:38 BST