Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03509 (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 11:43:56 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:51:29 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEOACMAA.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: <00f701c081fe$021cebe0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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 Aaron Agassi
> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 8:56
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
>
> ----- 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.
>
Oh God, he's back! :-)
Hi Aaron,
> No, it comes from an INTERACTION, a dialogue, if you will, between the
> experiment (which is rooted in the model) with objective reality.
>
Well, more resonance. I think the meaning system is closed 'in here',
defined by the positive/negative dichotomy of emotion that is applied
recursively. That said, words act as resonators so I can see how you use the
'dialogue' concept.
> Or, Chris Lofting, do you still seriously Post Modernistically evade
> Ontology, objective reality, at all?
>
As I said in the distant past, 'truth' stems from ownership, territorial
mapping and that is subjective -- more dialogue involved in 'talks' with
others but then this links truth to local, to self. Abstractions feed it
into cultural 'truths' etc etc and so objective reality is always qualified.
Cant escape that, part of the mind at work. Nothing to stop you believing in
an objective reality but that is tied to faith .. a no no in science -- too
personal :-)
I think you can see here the fundamentalist link to religion (or any other
discipline for that matter). The single context is the 'truth', the sense of
'MINE' [explicit assertion] and 'NOT YOURS' [implicit assertion]. But the
moment you question this you are lost since there are potentially an
infinite number of arguements to prove (!) you wrong! :-)
> 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??!
At the local level, YOU can have a total sense, a full all encompassing
sense of 'MINE' but that in itself is conjecture. The moment we get
scientific, statistical etc you have moved past the moment and the
objectivity is gone. The Zen concepts of still mind etc reflect a pool of
potentials that react to actuals as if a disturbance, the oscillations
detected in the brain function to restore balance, restore stillness. To
assert objectivity is to cause a disturbance, you are localising MINE from
NOT MINE;IOW at the FAITH level there is potentials compressed into a sense
of ONE. Lose your boundary at that point and ... who knows? well, you do but
you cannot prove it. :-)
>
> 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?
>
in the context of what I said above, it is a potential .. but then a lot of
things are potentials :-) Find your faith and you will find what you seek.
even illusions.
> If truth is possible, then the refinement, as you put it, may be
> productive.
>
even illusions are productive -- at the LOCAL level. LOCAL illusions fuel
our cultures...
> 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).
>
In the context of truth as ownership at a cultural level we can have a
general sense that we then localise, comes back down to faith again (and
includes faith in our METHODS).
> And so, Chris Lofting, just maybe, you can be a Popperian after all!
>
Nah -- too negative for me! (see my recent comments to Joe).
> 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.
>
Truth is sourced in territorial mapping. It is 'built in'. Feedback loops
work on that mapping allowing for error correction. Abstract the EITHER/OR
of this and you get such concepts as TRUTH. Abstract further and you get
personal truths, cultural truths, species truths, universal truths. IOW
qualified truths. Go back a bit and you deal with SYNTAX processing and from
multithreading that you can get into semantics and pragamatics etc etc
The assertion of 'pure' objectivity however is always based on FAITH. The
restrictions imposed by science is that it needs negation to make maps and
so the moment you go past the moment (!) you loss all chance of validating
absolutely any such concept as objective reality; you are reduced to
probabilites, 'could bes'. The only absolute is the one YOU assert to
yourself :-)
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
===============================================================
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 - 11:49:44 GMT