Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA04489 (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 12:51:41 GMT Message-ID: <012701c08216$0f68ed40$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEOACMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:48:02 -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 6:51 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 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.
Huh??? What are you name calling about, Chris?
Is my statement true and/or sound or not?
And does objective reality limit experimental results or not?
>I think the meaning system is closed 'in here',
Are you saying that meaning is arbitrary? Or will you admit that there is
correspondence to reality thanks to evolution of the brain?
> 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.
No, I don't think so. What I am saying is that when one begins with an
hypothesis, no matter how self reinforcing, tested against reality, reality
allows much and refutes much else. That is the conversation to which I
allude. -A partnership between perception and reality.
>
> > 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
By truth I mean correspondence to reality. Any other definition is simply
not to the point. Besides, I was speaking of objective reality, not truth
(correspondence there to).
>-- more dialogue involved in 'talks' with
> others but then this links truth to local, to self.
No. Not so. The same statement may be made by different people. A statement
must stand or fall on it's own merits. A statement can be valid, internally
consistent, and/or true, in correspondence to reality.
>Abstractions feed it
> into cultural 'truths' etc
What in Hell are 'cultural truths'? Do you, perhaps, mean truisms?
>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 :-)
Ah! Now we come to the crux of it!
Is belief in an objective reality no more than faith? Or is the rejection of
Solipsism at least a viable hypothesis?
As for Ontology a no-no in Science, malarkey! You, Chris Lofting, embrace a
Post Modernist Science. But that is by no means requisite. Indeed, I doubt
it's viability at all! Science not investigating reality? Indeed! Then, what
is the point at all?
> 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! :-)
I do not need certitude, much less Dogmatism, to allow the question of
Ontology, and there for the possibility of truth (correspondence to
reality), or even of knowledge (there of).
>
>
> > Or, else, do you offer any solution, any hope, with Epistemological
> > quandaries of Neurostructural bias?
> >
My question stands.
> > >
> > > 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.
I wish that it *where* a conjecture. That would be all I require. Alas, what
you state is not even to the point. Thus, less than unclear.
>The moment we get
> scientific, statistical etc you have moved past the moment and the
> objectivity is gone.
Huh??!
>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.
Huh???!
>To
> assert objectivity is to cause a disturbance,
-In the brain, right? What of it?
>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. :-)
Does that last even contain any linguistic sense at all?
>
>
> >
> > 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 ..
Then calling reality a potential remains the more obtuse and meaningless,
since you place the expression in a context of text which remains
incomprehensible.
>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...
>
You know perfectly well that the productivity where of I alluded was
Methodological.
>
> > 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
Which is not how I use the word "truth", and you know it, you liar!
We do agree, to some degree, on the importance of context. and you are
deliberately taking me out of context. I keep saying:
Truth, defined as correspondence to reality. Any context of "truth as
ownership", whatever that means, applies only to your own usage. I demand,
Chris, that you acknowledge that I am talking about correspondence to
reality, and not "ownership", whatever that means.
Desist from willful distortion, Chris Lofting. Before we go any further.
*Own* your obtuse "ownership" definition. Do not impute it to me.
I asked about correspondence to reality, specifically. Not about any evasion
of your own.
>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.
No, maps areeither more in coorespondance to reality, or less so.
>It is 'built in'. Feedback loops
> work on that mapping allowing for error correction.
Fine, but this does not answer my question.
>Abstract the EITHER/OR
> of this and you get such concepts as TRUTH.
I wouldn't know, but you are rambling on your own hobby horse. My question
was specific. Answer first, then explain.
>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
Bullshit.
>
> The assertion of 'pure' objectivity however is always based on FAITH.
I do not know what "purity" means in this context.
But I did not speak of objectivity in the sense that people or theories
might be hoped to be at all objective. I spoke of objective reality, also
called reality or Physical reality, the domain of Ontology. What actually
is, be this known or unknown. Such that corresponding statements are true,
by definition.
"Reality, what a concept!" quips Robin Williams. And, indeed, what a concept
is the concept OF reality. Because the concept of reality is that even
without any such concept, there is, would be, and was from some point before
the dawn of consciousness and conceptualization, reality.
Now, if you do not agree, just say so, Chris Lofting.
>The
> restrictions imposed by science is that it needs negation to make maps
Perhaps.
>and
> so the moment you go past the moment (!)
I take it that you mean:
The moment one passes in time beyond any prior moment...
>you loss all chance of validating
Validating? How? Why are we even speaking of validation? You are again
answering your own pre-rehearsed yet obtuse questions, Chris Lofting, and
not anyone else's...
> absolutely any such concept as objective reality; you are reduced to
> probabilites, 'could bes'. The only absolute is the one YOU assert to
> yourself :-)
We may only have possibilities, but possibilities reference actuality. The
many notions seek the one mysterious absolute. Appearances may bed
indistinct, but that does not require an indistinct universe.
>
> 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 - 12:53:22 GMT