Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 09:55:52 GMT

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on..."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA02899 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:58:59 GMT
    Message-ID: <00f701c081fe$021cebe0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENJCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:55:52 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:12 AM
    Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > > Of Vincent Campbell
    > > Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 11:54
    > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    > >
    > >
    > > <it is obvious from this remark that either you did not read the
    > > post or you
    > > > are a bit slow on the uptake today! :-)>
    > > >
    > > Of course I read all of your interminably long post. You can't
    > > deny what is
    > > the case just because it doesn't suit your model. Light displays
    > > characteristics of both waves and particles, even the Royal Institution
    > > Christmans lectures explained it in this way a couple of years ago.
    > >
    >
    > So? what has this to do with discussion on methods of interpretation?
    There
    > is no assertion re the 'facts' but how the METHOD of analysis can create
    > misconceptions. When you create an experiment to test for something the
    > design and intent does not come out of nowhere, it comes out of your MODEL
    > of reality and that model has STRUCTURE and that structure is rooted in
    your
    > neurolology and so the test validates the structure and more so REFLECTS
    > that structure.

    No, it comes from an INTERACTION, a dialogue, if you will, between the
    experiment (which is rooted in the model) with objective reality.

    Or, Chris Lofting, do you still seriously Post Modernistically evade
    Ontology, objective reality, at all?

    Or, else, do you offer any solution, any hope, with Epistemological
    quandaries of Neurostructural bias?

    >
    > I am surprised that you cannot pick this up, you seem to be stuck in
    > expression mode incapable of differentiating!
    >
    > If I create an experiment based on dichotomisations (e.g. left slit, right
    > slit) and if wave patterns are a property of this METHOD regardless of
    what
    > it is applied-to then there will be a case where I will see this property
    > expressed and so the property is not necessarily a property of 'out
    there'.
    > IOW the method I used to experiment is the source of meaning and all
    > patterns I get from applying that method are meaningful only in the
    context
    > of the method and not necessarily generalisable.
    >
    > It is the CONTEXT that determines the PERCEPTION but that context is
    > coloured by the METHOD. If I view things in a classical way then in
    general
    > I will see 'classical' but when anomolies emerge I will drift into
    > non-classical and out of that create a 'new' paradigm.
    >
    > The point is that all POSSIBLE meanings are already coded in the neurology
    > as potentials based on potiental object/relationships distinctions and so
    we
    > can 'refine' our maps buy studying these areas and then re-viewing our
    maps.
    >
    Possible, at all, or only humanly NeuroStructurally possible?

    If, indeed, *all* possible meanings are encoded, then might not truth,
    meaning correspondence to objective reality, be possible? Chris Lofting, can
    it be that you have finally found us hope??!

    Or might there be humanly NeuroStructurally impossible meanings beyond our
    ken and literally inconceivable to any human being? And are such the only
    ones corresponding to reality? Must reality be, there for, humanly
    unknowable?

    Heck, Chris Lofting, do tell, will you acknowledge Ontology, objective
    reality, at all?

    If truth is possible, then the refinement, as you put it, may be productive.

    If there can be any such thing as truth, then the next question is whether
    there can be knowledge of any truth (correspondence to reality).

    And so, Chris Lofting, just maybe, you can be a Popperian after all!

    Of course, one needs Epistemological Methodological criterion by which to
    assay theoretical and experimental refinement. Or do you still deny any
    meaning in or possibility of discovering any such Epistemological
    Methodological criterion?

    After all, the brain has evolved for survival, in the real world, if indeed
    there is a real world. And so, just maybe, knowledge of truth
    (correspondence to reality) may be a built in humanly NeuroStrutural
    possibility, especially through progress and error checking.

    > >
    > > > >> By the way, that reminds me that you never answered that question
    > > > > >about the invariability of the speed of light.
    > > >
    > > <? I dont recall this at all, when, where?>
    > >
    > > OK, this was you on the 27/11/2000 (responding to Joe):-
    > >
    > > >>>BTW since you have not responded to previous emails (both off
    > > > > >>memetics and
    > > > > > >on) I suppose I will have to point you in the 'right'
    > > direction: the
    > > > > >> *fourth* concept that enables the encapsulation of the
    > > idea of a wave
    > > > is
    > > > > > >SPEED, something you leave out so as to retain your
    > > > > >>trichotomy... As usual
    > > > > >> all those who favour trichotomies fail to differentiate
    relational
    > > > > >> processes, they lump them all together, Freud did, Popper did,
    > > > > >>and Peirce
    > > > > >> did. An education based on these sorts of works prior to
    > > analysis of
    > > > the
    > > > > > >neurology clouds your thinking...
    > > >
    > > Joe asked:
    > >
    > > >> How many speeds does light have, exactly?
    > >
    > > You said:
    > >
    > > >>>depends on context. in water is different to vaccuum is
    > > different to air.
    > >
    > > To my mind this is an inadequate, and inaccurate statement.
    > >
    >
    > No it isnt. Read up on EMF more, Chekov Radiation etc and while your at it
    > reflect on this that it is not light that has a limit but more that matter
    > cannot break its boundary -- expressed in De Broglie's work re matter
    wave;
    > the limit is reflected in a prohibition on the frequency of the matter
    wave
    > becoming infinite. In this universe this is expressed as a speed limit.
    >
    > Thus light in 'this' universe can vary in a 'multiverse' context -- not my
    > preferred model but it is a possible.
    >
    > Chris.
    >
    >
    >

    ===============================================================
    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 Jan 19 2001 - 10:00:40 GMT